Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/appointmentofteaOOballrich 


HARVARD  STUDIES  IN  EDUCATION 

PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF 
THE  DIVISION  OF  EDUCATION 

VOLUME  II 


THE 

APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS 

IN  CITIES 

A  DESCRIPTIVE  CRITICAL  AND 
CONSTRUCTIVE  STUDY 


BY 

FRANK  WASHINGTON   BALLOU,   Ph.D. 

DIRECTOR,  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCATIONAL  INVESTIGATION 
AND  MEASUREMENT,  BOSTON  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS 


tjfl 


CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
Oxford  University  Press 

1915 


COPYRIGHT,  191 5 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


* 


PREFACE 

This  study  was  made  possible  by  the  generous  response  of 
busy  Superintendents  to  my  requests  for  information  and 
for  help  in  the  correction  of  statements  of  fact.  Not  a  city 
was  added  to  or  taken  from  the  list  of  seventy-three  cities 
originally  selected  for  study,  and  every  city  replied  to  my 
letters  except  one.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  bear  witness  to  the 
willingness  of  Superintendents  of  Schools  to  contribute  to 
the  detailed  study  of  educational  problems. 

From  the  planning  of  this  book  to  its  completion  I  am 
indebted  in  various  ways  to  the  members  of  the  Division 
of  Education  at  Harvard  University,  under  whom  my  work 
was  done;  and  especially  to  Professor  Paul  H.  Hanus,  whose 
sympathetic  interest  and  incisive  criticism  have  been  an 
invaluable  guide  and  stimulus. 

Frank  W.  Ballou. 


328628 


CONTENTS 

Introduction  page 

The  Nature  of  the  Study xv 

Descriptive,  Critical,  and  Constructive.  Its  Implications. 
Special  Attention  Given  Agencies  which  do  the  Appointing. 

Scope  and  Limits  of  the  Study xvi 

Initial  Appointment  of  Regular  Teachers.  Selection  of  Cities: 
First  Class  Cities,  Second  Class  Cities,  Third  Class  Cities. 

The  Relative  Importance  of  the  Teacher xviii 

What  is  Involved  in  Providing  Education.  Enrolment  and 
Teachers.  Operating  Expenses  and  Teachers'  Salaries.  The 
Teacher  the  Centre  of  the  Problem. 

To  What  Extent  is  this  Study  Representative? xx 

Population.  Enrolment.  Number  of  Teachers.  Operating 
Expenses.    Salaries  of  Teachers  and  Supervisors. 

Method  of  the  Study xxii 

Sources  of  Information.  Necessity  of  Securing  Co-operation 
of  Superintendents.  Confirmation  of  Facts  by  Superintend- 
ents. 

PART  I 

METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS  IN  REPRESENTATIVE 
CITY  SCHOOL  SYSTEMS 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Evolution  of  the   Present  Appointive  Agencies.     His- 
torical Survey 3 

Selection  of  Teachers  by:  the  Town  Meeting;  the  Select- 
men; the  Prudential  Committee;  the  School  Committee;  and 
the  Superintendent  of  Schools.    Summary. 

CHAPTER  II 

Present  Methods  of  Appointing  Teachers  in  Cities 8 

Purpose  and  Scope  of  this  Chapter 8 

This  Study  based  on  Rules.  What  a  Study  of  Rules  does  not 
Show.    What  a  Study  of  Rules  Shows. 


X  CONTENTS 

How  Data  were  Prepared n 

Rules  not  always  Clear.  Use  of  Terms  not  Uniform.  Need  of 
Clearer  Definition  of  Procedure.  Methods  Used  to  Minimize 
Possibilities  of  Misstatements. 

Tabulation  of  Facts  Concerning  Appointment 13 

(a)  First  Class  Cities,  (b)  Second  Class  Cities,  (c)  Third 
Class  Cities. 

Types  of  Procedure  in  Appointing  Teachers 16 

The  Method  in  Each  City  Classified  as  a  Unit.    Classes  De- 
fined: C,  B,  and  A.    Types  defined:  1  to  9. 
Classification  of  Cities  according  to  Classes  and  Types 

of  Procedure 18 

Class  C     18 

Types  1,  2,  3. 
Class  B 23 

Types  4,  5,  6. 
Class  A 37 

Types  7,  8,  9. 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Significance  of  the  Methods  of  Appointing  Teachers  .  .  42 
The  Relative  Number  of  Cities  under  Each  Class  and 

Type  of  Appointment 42 

The  Significance  of  the  Arrangement  of  Classes  and  Types 

of  Appointment .   .  45 

(1)  Classes  of  Appointment  are  Arranged  according  to  their 
historical  Evolution 48 

(2)  Difference  between  the  most  Extreme  Types 49 

(3)  Transition  from  One  Type  to  Another  not  Difficult ...  50 

(4)  Conclusions      52 

What  Each  Appointive  Agency  officially  Does  in  Making 

Appointments 52 

(1)  The  Board  of  Education 53 

(2)  The  Committee  on  Teachers    . 54 

(3)  The  Superintendent  of  Schools 57 

(4)  Summary  and  Conclusions 58 

CHAPTER  IV 

Eligibility  Qualifications  and  Methods  of  Determining  Them 

in  Selected  Cities     60 

Conditions  Met  with  in  Making  a  Comprehensive  Study    60 
Study   of  Eligibility  Requirements    in   Selected   Cities: 
Boston,  St.  Louis,  Portland,  Me.,  Cincinnati,  and 
Worcester 63 


CONTENTS  xi 

(i)    Eligibility  Requirements  for  Teachers  in  (a)  Elementary 
Schools;  (b)  High  Schools. 

(2)  Examinations  for  Testing  the  Fitness  of  candidates  for 
(a)  Elementary  Schools;  (b)  High  Schools. 

(3)  The  Board  of  Examiners  (or  Other  Agency)  that  Con- 
ducts the  Examinations. 

(4)  The  Merit  List  of  Eligible  Candidates. 
Comparative  Tabulations  of  Phases  of  Eligibility  Require- 
ments   77 

(1)  Amount  of  Schooling  and  Teaching  Experience    ....  77 

(2)  Subjects  of  Examination 77 

(3)  Membership  of  Board  of  Examiners 80 

(4)  The  Merit  List 80 

Summary  of  Conclusions „ 81 


PART  II 
THE  CITY  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Authority  of  Boards  of  Education  in  Cities 87 

Education  not  a  Federal  Matter.  Education  a  Function  of 
the  State.  The  State  Discharges  its  Responsibility  through 
the  State  Legislature.  Agencies  of  State  Educational  Ad- 
ministration. Agencies  of  Local  Educational  Administration. 
Cities  are  Creatures  of  the  State.  City  Board  of  Education 
a  State  Agency.    Summary. 

CHAPTER  VI 

City  Boards  of  Education:  Their  Size,  Membership,  and  Com- 
mittee Organization 92 

The  Size  of  City  Boards  of  Education 92 

The  Membershd?  of  City  Boards  of  Education 101 

(1)  Term  of  Office 102 

(2)  Compensation 104 

(3)  Methods  of  Selection 105 

(4)  Qualifications  of  Members 106 

(a)  Age.     (b)  Residence,     (c)  Exclusion  from  Holding 
Certain  other  Offices,    (d)  Other  Qualifications. 

The  Committee  Organization  of  City  Boards no 

Most  Boards  Organized  into  Committees.  Transacting  Busi- 
ness through  Committees.  Some  Boards  which  have  no 
Standing  Committees.  Varying  Conceptions  Shown  in  Or- 
ganization of  Standing  Committees: 


xii  CONTENTS 

(a)  The  Number  of  Standing  Committees  into  which 
the  Boards  are  Divided 112 

(b)  The  Average  Size  of  Standing  Committees    ....   114 

(c)  The  Irresponsibility  of  Standing  Committees  in 
General,  and  of  the  Committees  on  Teachers  in  Par- 
ticular   115 

(d)  Summary 121 

CHAPTER  VII 

Changes  in  the  Size  of  Boards  of  Education,  in  Methods  of 
Selecting  Members,  and  in  Their  Terms  of  Office, 
in  Twenty-eight  Cities,  from  1893  to  1913  .   .   .   .123 

The  Size  of  Boards  of  Education 124 

Size  of  Boards  in  1893  and  in  19 13.  Reduction  in  Size  of 
Boards  in  General.  Reduction  in  Size  Contemporaneous  with 
Increased  Responsibility.  How  much  the  Size  of  Boards  has 
Changed:  (a)  Increases;  (b)  Decreases;  (c)  No  Changes. 
Summary. 
The  Methods  of  Selecting  Members 130 

(1)  Methods  of  Selecting  Members  in  1893  and  in  1913 
compared 131 

(2)  Specific  Changes  that  have  Taken  Place 133 

(a)  How  Members  are  Chosen  and  by  Whom     ....   134 

(b)  Chosen  from  the  City  at  Large  or  by  Wards     .    .    .   137 
The  Term  of  Office  of  Members 139 

Term  of  Office  in  Years  in  1893  and  in  19 13  Compared.   Charts 
Showing  Increased  Length  of  Term.    How  much  Change  there 
has  been:  (a)  Increases;  (b)  Decreases;  (c)  No  Changes. 
Conclusions 142 

(1)  Concerning  the  Size  of  the  Board  of  Education    ....   142 

(2)  Concerning  Methods  of  Selecting  Members 143 

(3)  Concerning  the  Term  of  Office  of  Members 143 

PART   III 
THE    CITY    SUPERINTENDENT   OF    SCHOOLS 


CHAPTER   VIII 

The  City  Superintendent  of  Schools:   Selection,  Tenure,  and 

Salary 147 

How  the  Superintendent  is  Selected 147 

The  Superintendent's  Term  of  Office 151 

(1)  The  Length  of  the  Term  of  Office 153 

(2)  How  the  Term  of  Office  is  Fixed 155 


CONTENTS  xiii 

The  Superintendent's  Salary 157 

(1)  The  Amount  of  the  Superintendent's  Salary 157 

(2)  How  the  Superintendent's  Salary  is  Fixed 159 

Changes  in  the  Length  of  the  Superintendent's  Term  of 

Office  and  his  Salary 160 

(1)  Changes  in  Length  of  the  Superintendent's  Term  of  Office  161 

(2)  Changes  in  the  Amount  of  the  Superintendent's  Salary  .  163 

Changing  of  the  Superintendents 164 

Summary  of  Findings 165 

PART   IV 
CONCLUSIONS    AND    RECOMMENDATIONS 

CHAPTER    IX 

Summary  and  Conclusions  —  A  Constructive  Plan  for  Appoint- 
ing Teachers 169 

Concerning  the  City  Board  of  Education 171 

Concerning  the  City  Superintendent  of  Schools     ....  175 

The  Appointment  of  Teachers:  A  Constructive  Plan     .   .  178 

(1)  Eligibility  Requirements  of  Candidates 179 

(2)  Methods  of  Determining  Qualifications      179 

(3)  The  Board  of  Examiners  to  Grant  Certificates  of  Quali- 
fication       181 

(4)  The  Merit  List  of  Eligible  Candidates 182 

(5)  The  Procedure  in  Making  Appointments 183 

Appendices 189 

Bibliography 191 

Appendix  A 195 

Appendix  B 198 

Appendix  C    . 202 


INTRODUCTION 

The  Nature  of  the  Study 

Descriptive,  Critical,  and  Constructive.  This  study  is  de- 
scriptive, critical,  and  constructive.  It  describes  the  present 
methods  of  appointing  teachers  in  representative  city  school 
systems.  It  shows  whether  the  superintendent  of  schools, 
a  standing  committee  of  the  board  of  education,  or  the 
board  itself,  or  what  combination  of  these  three,  partici- 
pates in  the  formal  procedure  of  appointing  a  teacher.  It 
shows  also,  in  a  general  way,  the  part  which  each  legally 
plays  in  making  an  appointment.  It  criticises  the  present 
methods  in  the  light  of  prevailing  practice  and  of  general 
principles  of  school  administration.  On  the  basis  of  such 
description  and  criticism  it  suggests  better  methods. 

Its  Implications.  But  the  appointment  of  a  teacher 
means  more  than  the  formal  administrative  act  by  which  a 
teacher  is  selected  for  a  position.  The  appointment  in- 
volves the  important  consideration  of  rinding  a  person  with 
the  qualifications  necessary  to  be  a  teacher.  Hence,  eligi- 
bility qualifications  must  be  established  by  every  board 
of  education.  To  determine  whether  a  candidate  possesses 
those  qualifications  requires  some  kind  of  an  examination 
of  the  candidate.  Hence,  some  agency  must  be  instituted 
to  conduct  the  examination.  Therefore,  a  study  of  the 
appointment  of  teachers  involves,  among  other  things,  some 
consideration  of  (a)  eligibility  qualifications,  covering  such 
topics  as  age,  teaching  experience,  and  scholastic  and  pro- 
fessional training;  (b)  the  examinations,  both  oral  and 
written,  by  which  the  scholastic  and  professional  fitness 
of  the  candidate  is  judged;    (c)  the  board  of  examiners, 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

or  similar  agency,  which  conducts  the  examination;  and 
(d)  the  merit  list  of  qualified  candidates  which  usually 
grows  out  of  an  effort  to  appoint  teachers  according  to 
merit. 

Special  Attention  Given  Agencies  which  do  the  Appointing. 
Naturally  a  study  of  the  appointment  of  teachers  concerns 
itself  also  with  the  agencies  which  do  the  appointing. 
Hence,  special  attention  is  given  to  the  board  of  education 
and  to  the  city  superintendent  of  schools.  These  agencies 
are  studied  critically  to  determine  what  qualifications  each 
possesses  for  discharging  the  important  function  of  ap- 
pointing teachers.  The  descriptive  and  critical  study  of 
(a)  the  present  procedure  in  appointing  teachers,  and  (b)  the 
agencies  which  now  do  the  appointing,  will  form  the  basis 
for  the  constructive  suggestions. 

Scope  and  Limits  of  the  Study 

Initial  Appointment  of  Regular  Teachers.  This  study 
covers  the  initial  appointment  of  regular  teachers  in  public 
day  elementary  and  public  day  secondary  schools  in  seventy- 
three  representative  cities  of  the  United  States.  Initial 
appointment  means  a  teacher's  first  appointment  in  a 
school  system,  as  differentiated  from  subsequent  or  annual 
appointments.  Further,  this  study  has  to  do  only  with  the 
appointment  of  teachers  in  city  school  systems  and  not 
in  rural  communities.  The  appointment  of  kindergarten 
teachers,  of  teachers  of  special  branches  in  the  elementary 
school,  of  teachers  of  special  subjects  in  the  secondary 
school,  of  principals,  and  of  other  administrative  officers 
has  not  been  covered  in  this  study.  The  study  is  also  con- 
fined to  public  day  schools,  excluding  from  consideration 
private  and  evening  schools. 

Selection  of  Cities:   First  Class  Cities.    Even  with  the 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

above  exclusions,  it  was  impossible  to  include  all  cities  of 
the  country.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  to  select  repre- 
sentative cities  whose  methods  of  appointing  teachers  were 
to  be  studied.  The  first  group  of  cities,  called  throughout 
this  monograph  first  class  cities,  contains  all  cities  in  the 
United  States  having  a  population  of  300,000  or  over. 
The  cities1  are:  Boston,  New  York,  Buffalo,  Newark, 
Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  Baltimore,  Washington,  New 
Orleans,  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago,  Detroit,  Mil- 
waukee, Minneapolis,  St.  Louis,  San  Francisco,  and  Los 
Angeles.    Total  18. 

Second  Class  Cities.  The  second  group  of  cities,  called 
throughout  this  monograph  second  class  cities,  contains  all 
cities  in  the  United  States  having  a  population  of  from 
100,000  to  300,000.  The  cities  are:  Cambridge,  Fall 
River,  Lowell,  Worcester,  Providence,  Bridgeport,  New 
Haven,  Albany,  Rochester,  Syracuse,  Jersey  City,  Pater- 
son,  Scranton,  Richmond,  Atlanta,  Louisville,  Memphis, 
Nashville,  Birmingham,  Columbus,  Dayton,  Toledo,  In- 
dianapolis, Grand  Rapids,  St.  Paul,  Omaha,  Kansas  City, 
Mo.,  Denver,  Seattle,  Spokane,  Portland,  Ore.,  and  Oak- 
land.   Total  32. 

Third  Class  Cities.  The  third  group  of  cities,  called 
throughout  this  monograph  third  class  cities,  is  a  more 
heterogeneous  group.  It  is  made  up  of  cities  that  have  a 
population  ranging  from  about  11,000  to  nearly  100,000, 
and  was  made  up  in  the  following  manner.  After  the  first 
class  and  second  class  cities  had  been  selected,  it  was  found 
that  several  states  were  not  represented  in  either  selection, 
because  they  have  no  cities  with  as  many  as  100,000  people. 
Therefore,  in  order  to  make  this  study  representative  of 

1  The  order  of  the  cities  here  and  elsewhere  always  follows  their  classification 
by  divisions  of  the  country:  the  divisions  are  those  regularly  made  by  the  United 
States  Bureau  of  Education.  For  a  list  of  the  cities  and  the  population  of  each 
(in  thousands)  classified  by  divisions,  see  Appendix  A. 


XV111 


INTRODUCTION 


every  state  in  the  Union,  a  third  group  of  cities  was  made 
up,  consisting  of  the  largest  cities  in  each  state  not  repre- 
sented in  either  of  the  other  two  groups.  Obviously  none 
of  these  cities  has  a  population  of  100,000,  although  some 
nearly  reach  that  number.  On  the  other  hand,  the  largest 
city  in  one  of  our  states  has  less  than  12,000  people.  As  a 
result,  the  group  of  third  class  cities  is  not  as  homogeneous 
as  the  other  two  groups.  The  cities  are  Portland,  Me., 
Manchester,  N.  H.,  Burlington,  Vt.,  Wilmington,  Del., 
Wheeling,  W.  Va.,  Charlotte,  N.  C,  Charleston,  S.  C, 
Jacksonville,  Fla.,  Meridian,  Miss.,  San  Antonio,  Tex., 
Little  Rock,  Ark.,  Oklahoma,  Okla.,  Des  Moines,  la., 
Fargo,  N.  D.,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,  Kansas  City,  Kan.,  Butte, 
Mont.,  Cheyenne,  Wy.,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,  Tucson, 
Ariz.,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  Reno,  Nev.,  and  Boise,  Ida. 
Total  23. 


Every  dot  represents 
a  City  covered    by 
our   study. 


The  Relative  Importance  of  the  Teacher 

What  is  Involved  in  Providing  Education.    The  problem 
of  providing  public  education,  whether  in  a  rural  district 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

or  in  a  city,  involves  three  fundamental  elements,  namely, 
finding  a  suitable  teacher,  providing  the  teachers  pay,  and 
furnishing  a  place  for  the  teacher  to  work.  Our  study  has 
to  do  only  with  the  appointment  of  a  suitable  teacher,  and 
not  at  all  with  salary  or  with  the  school  building  and  its 
equipment.  A  brief  consideration  of  relative  magnitude  of 
some  factors  will  indicate  to  some  extent  the  importance  of 
the  teacher. 

Enrolment  and  Teachers.  The  enrolment  in  the  public 
day  elementary  and  day  high  schools  in  the  cities  of  the 
United  States  of  over  5,000  in  1911-12  was  6,141,866  pupils.1 
This  number  by  itself  is  incomprehensible.  Its  significance 
can  be  realized  or  appreciated  in  part  when  it  is  pointed  out 
that  this  vast  army  of  school  children  is  more  than  6  per 
cent  of  the  total  population  of  the  United  States.  If  all 
pupils  attending  school  in  rural  communities  and  smaller 
cities  were  included  in  the  above  enrolment,  the  per  cent 
would  be  more  than  twice  as  large.  To  teach  these  6,000,000 
pupils  in  our  public  schools  necessitated  the  employment 
in  1911-12  of  154,815  teachers.2 

Operating  Expenses  and  Teachers'  Salaries.  The  total 
operating  expenses  (exclusive  of  new  buildings,  sites,  equip- 
ment, interest,  and  other  indebtedness)  in  the  city  school 
systems  which  have  been  organized  to  educate  these  pupils 
were  $177,393,567.2  Of  this  amount  for  operating  ex- 
penses, $128,433,819,2  or  over  72  per  cent,  were  paid  in  the 
salaries  of  principals,  teachers,  and  supervisors.3 

The  Teacher  the  Centre  of  the  Problem.  The  teacher  is 
the  centre  of  the  problem  of  providing  education.  The 
supervision  by  principals,  by  assistant  superintendents,  or 

1  Data  taken  from  the  Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education 
for  1 912,  vol.  ii,  pp.  22-29. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education  does  not  segregate  the 
salaries  of  teachers. 


xx  INTRODUCTION 

by  superintendents,  the  assistance  of  special  teachers,  the 
material  equipment  of  the  school,  and  every  other  educa- 
tional function  or  resource  is  for  the  purpose  of  improving 
the  instruction  which  it  is  the  teacher's  duty  to  give.  From 
the  standpoint  of  the  pupil  also,  the  teacher  is  the  largest 
factor  in  his  education.  The  teacher  often  largely  deter- 
mines the  pupil's  attitude  toward  school  and  hence  toward 
his  own  education. 

When  one  realizes  that  the  instruction  given  in  our  city 
schools  alone  directly  affects  annually  over  6  per  cent  of 
the  total  population  of  the  United  States;  that  to  give  this 
instruction  required  154,815  teachers;  that  the  cost  of  this 
instruction  and  its  supervision  is  over  72  per  cent  of  the 
total  operating  expenses  of  our  city  school  systems;  that 
the  community's  effort  to  provide  instruction  for  its  youth 
and  the  pupils'  attitude  toward  school  and  education  centre 
in  the  teacher  —  when  one  realizes  these  facts,  then  one 
can  begin  to  understand  the  significance  and  importance 
of  appointing  suitable  teachers. 

To  what  Extent  is  this  Study  Representative? 

It  is  important  to  consider  to  what  extent  this  study  is 
representative  of  all  cities  of  the  country.  For  this  pur- 
pose a  comparison  is  made  between  certain  important  edu- 
cational factors  in  the  cities  covered  in  this  study  and  those 
same  factors  in  all  cities  of  the  country.  These  factors  are 
population,  enrolment,  number  of  teachers,  operating  ex- 
penses, and  salaries  of  teachers  and  supervisory  officers.1 

Population.  The  total  population  of  the  United  States 
in  1910  was  91,972,266.    Of  this  number  42,623,383  lived 

1  Data  taken  from  the  Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education 
for  1912,  vol.  ii,  pp.  5,  22-29.  Data  for  a  few  cities  were  missing.  See  Appen- 
dix B. 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

in  cities  of  over  5,000  people.  Of  this  total  number  living 
in  cities  in  1910,  21,353,705,  or  50.9  per  cent,  lived  in  the 
cities  included  in  this  study. 

Enrolment.  The  total  enrolment  in  the  public  day  schools 
in  all  cities  of  over  5,000  in  191 1  was  6,141,866.  Of  this 
number  3,212,151,  or  52.2  per  cent,  were  enrolled  in  cities 
covered  by  this  study. 

Number  of  Teachers.  The  total  number  of  teachers  em- 
ployed in  all  cities  of  over  5,000  in  1911  was  154,815.  Of 
this  number  76,955,  or  49.7  per  cent,  were  employed  in  the 
cities  covered  by  this  study,  and  hence  were  directly  af- 
fected by  the  systems  of  appointment  which  are  to  be 
considered. 

Operating  Expenses.  The  total  operating  expenses  for 
all  cities  of  over  5,000  people  in  191 1  were  $177,393,567. 
Of  this  amount  $92,476,845,  or  52.1  per  cent,  were  expended 
by  the  cities  which  are  covered  in  this  study. 

Salaries  of  Teachers  and  Supervisors.  The  total  amount 
expended  in  the  cities  of  over  5,000  in  191 1,  for  salaries 
of  principals,  teachers,  and  supervisors,  was  $128,433,- 
819.  Of  this  amount  $60,411,771,  or  51.7  per  cent,  were 
spent  in  the  cities  within  our  study  for  teachers'  salaries 
alone. 

The  cities  which  we  are  studying  include: 

(a)  50.9  per  cent  of  the  total  urban  population  in  the 
United  States. 

(b)  52.2  per  cent  of  the  total  enrolment  in  cities. 

(c)  49.7  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  teachers  em- 
ployed in  cities. 

(d)  52.1  per  cent  of  the  total  operating  expenses  in 
cities. 

(e)  51.7  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  of  salaries  paid 
to  principals,  teachers,  and  supervisory  officers  in 
cities. 


xxn  INTRODUCTION 


Method  of  the  Study 


Sources  of  Information.  Besides  the  general  literature  of 
the  subject  and  the  educational  laws  of  the  states,  the 
sources  of  information  for  this  study  were  the  school  docu- 
ments issued  by  city  boards  of  education.  Chief  among 
these  documents  were,  first,  the  rules  and  regulations 
governing  the  activities  of  the  boards  of  education  and 
those  governing  the  city  schools,  and,  second,  the  annual 
reports  of  boards  of  education.  The  rules  and  regula- 
tions were  obtained  largely  through  direct  correspondence 
with  superintendents.  The  annual  reports  of  the  boards 
in  most  of  the  larger  cities  were  consulted  by  the  writer  in 
the  library  of  the  division  of  education. 

Necessity  of  Securing  Co-operation  of  Superintendents. 
Because  the  rules  and  regulations  are  not  printed  every 
year,  and  in  some  cities  have  not  been  printed  for  several 
years,  it  was  impossible  to  know  whether  the  rules  govern- 
ing the  appointment  of  teachers  had  remained  the  same 
since  the  rules  were  last  printed.  Several  facts  were  also 
needed  about  the  board  of  education  and  the  superintendent 
of  schools  which  are  seldom  stated  in  the  annual  reports  or 
in  any  other  school  documents.  Such  facts  are  the  quali- 
fications of  school  board  members,  the  tenure  of  office  of 
the  superintendent  of  schools,  and  how  that  tenure  is  fixed. 
Practically  the  only  feasible  source  of  information  for  these 
facts  was  the  superintendent  of  schools  or  some  one  con- 
nected with  the  city  school  system.  In  order  to  be  sure 
that  the  facts  secured  were  up  to  date,  and  in  order  to 
secure  data  not  easily  obtained  from  any  other  source,  the 
following  plan  was  adopted. 

Confirmation  of  Facts  by  Superintendents.  After  utilizing 
all  the  available  sources  of  information  at  hand,  the  writer 


INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

tabulated1  what  information  he  had  secured  concerning 
each  city  —  sometimes  it  was  complete,  sometimes  very 
incomplete  —  and  sent  it  to  the  superintendent  of  schools 
with  a  personal  letter  asking  him  to  confirm  or  correct  the 
statement  of  facts  and  to  add  any  information  which  the 
writer  had  thus  far  been  unable  to  obtain.  The  writer 
desires  to  express  his  sincere  appreciation  of  the  assistance 
thus  rendered  by  busy  superintendents,  without  whose  co- 
operation this  study  could  not  have  been  as  complete  or 
as  accurate  as  it  is.  The  information  which  was  secured 
in  this  manner  is  largely  presented  in  the  three  basic  tables 
of  the  study.2 

1  For  memorandum  blank  used,  see  Appendix  C. 

2  Namely,  those  on  appointment,  pp.  13-16;  those   on  the  board,  pp.  93- 
98;  and  those  on  the  superintendent,  pp.  148-150. 


PART  I 

METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS  IN 

REPRESENTATIVE  CITY  SCHOOL 

SYSTEMS 


•     a  * 


THE   APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS 
IN  CITIES 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PRESENT  APPOINTIVE 
AGENCIES  x 

Historical  Survey 

Although  this  monograph  is  intended  to  be  descriptive 
and  critical,  a  brief  review  of  the  historical  stages  through 
which  the  appointment  of  teachers  has  passed  seems  nec- 
essary and  hence  justifiable.  Such  a  review  will  furnish  a 
basis  for  a  better  understanding  and  interpretation  of  the 
present  practices  in  appointing  teachers. 

Selection  of  the  Teacher  by  the  Town  Meeting.  The 
simplest  method  of  providing  education  for  any  community 
in  this  country  was  that  practiced  in  the  typical  early  New 
England  town  meeting.  The  community,  feeling  that 
"the  good  education  of  children  is  of  singular  behoof  and 
benefit  to  any  Commonwealth/ ' 2  proceeded  to  provide 
for  the  education  of  its  children.  The  provision  was  made 
through  the  town  meeting,  in  which  was  expressed  the 
composite  will  of  the  community.  Educational  adminis- 
tration and  control  was  thus  exercised  by  the  direct  vote 
of  the  community.  The  two  essential  duties  for  the  town 
meeting  to  discharge  were  (a)  the  selection  of  a  teacher 
who  could  instruct  the  children,  and  (b)  the  raising  of 

1  With  the  exception  of  the  last  paragraph,  this  chapter  is  based  on  Suzzallo's 
The  Rise  of  Local  School  Supervision  in  Massachusetts.  References  to  Suzzallo's 
monograph  are  given  by  pages  only. 

2  Quoted  by  Martin  in  his  Evolution  of  the  Massachusetts  Public  School  System, 
p.  9. 

3 


4       THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

money  with  which  to  pay  for  his  services.  "Not  only  did 
the  town  as  a  whole  contribute  support  to  the  school, 
which  in  many  cases  meant  direct  contribution  to  the 
schoolmaster,  but  the  town  meeting  elected  the  teacher  in 
most  places  in  the  thirties  and  early  forties  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.' ' l  This  is  the  simplest,  most  direct  method 
of  providing  education  for  a  community  that  is  to  be  found 
in  our  educational  history.  This  is  democratic  control  of 
education  in  its  purest  form.  The  voters  of  the  commu- 
nity, directly  by  and  for  themselves,  decided  to  have  a 
school,  employed  a  teacher,  and  raised  the  money  with 
which  to  pay  him. 

Selection  of  the  Teacher  by  Selectmen.  The  second  stage 
of  evolution  is  marked  by  the  delegation  of  the  commu- 
nity's responsibility  for  education.  "Not  until  1693  did 
the  General  Court  lay  the  responsibility  '  for  the  settlement 
and  maintenance  of  such  schoolmaster  and  masters'  any- 
where else  than  upon  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  in  general. 
In  that  year  it  divided  the  responsibility,  or,  at  least,  laid 
it  in  two  places  —  upon  '  the  selectmen  and  the  inhabitants 
of  such  towns.'"2  The  town  meeting  continued  to  vote 
the  school  funds,  as  it  still  does  in  most  New  England  towns 
to-day;  but  the  matter  of  finding  a  teacher  and  of  agreeing 
on  compensation  were  matters  to  which  the  town  meeting 
could  not  advantageously  attend.3  If  the  teacher  could 
not  be  procured  from  the  immediate  community,  the  town 
meeting  found  it  necessary  to  select  some  agency  to  which 
could  be  delegated  the  duty  of  finding  one.  The  select- 
men had  been  provided  to  look  after  the  political  business 
of  the  town  during  the  time  when  the  town  meeting  was  not 
in  session.  Consequently  it  was  a  natural  step  for  the 
community,  through  the  town  meeting,  gradually  to  dele- 
gate more  and  more  of  the  administration  of  school  affairs 

1  Page  9.  *  Page  13.  *  Page  126. 


EVOLUTION  OF  THE  APPOINTIVE  AGENCIES        5 

to  the  selectmen.1  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  a  les- 
sening of  the  community's  responsibility  for  education:  it 
means  rather  that  the  community  is  merely  asking  a  group 
of  men,  organized  for  another  purpose,  to  serve  the  com- 
munity in  the  transaction  of  its  educational  business.  The 
selectmen  continued  to  be  largely  responsible  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  teachers  until  1789.2 

Selection  of  a  Teacher  by  a  Prudential  Committee.  The 
third  stage  of  development  is  marked  by  the  delegation  of 
the  selection  of  the  teacher  to  the  prudential  committee  in 
1827.  Although  Boston  had  a  permanent  school  committee 
in  1822,  the  first  of  its  kind  in  Massachusetts,  for  the  care 
and  superintendence  of  the  public  schools,  yet  in  most 
towns  this  care  and  superintendence  covered  only  certifica- 
tion and  inspection  of  teachers  and  did  not  include  their 
appointment.3  The  selection  of  a  teacher  was  placed  by 
law  (1827)  in  the  hands  of  the  so-called  prudential  com- 
mittee, consisting  of  one  person  who  was  a  resident  of  the 
district  where  chosen,  and  who  was  charged  with  the  duty 
"to  select  and  contract  with  a  school  teacher  for  his  own 
district."  4  Here  originated  the  district  system  of  school 
administration  and  the  ward  method  of  representation  on 
the  school  committee  of  later  times. 

Selection  of  Teachers  by  the  School  Committee.  The  fourth 
stage  is  marked  by  the  general  introduction  of  a  permanent 
school  committee  or  board  of  education  to  bear  the  educa- 
tional responsibility  of  the  community.  As  has  been  said, 
the  law  of  1822  created  a  permanent  school  committee  for 
Boston.  Towns  in  New  England  and  later  cities  generally 
followed  Boston's  lead  in  this  respect,  so  that  to-day  every 
city  of  importance  in  the  country  except  Buffalo,  N.  Y., 
has  a  legally  authorized  school  committee  or  board  of  edu- 

1  Page  36.  2  Page  136. 

3  Page  ai.  4  Quoted  by  Suzzallo,  p.  130. 


6       THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

cation.  With  the  establishment  of  this  permanent  board 
to  direct  and  manage  school  affairs,  responsibility  for  such 
matters  as  the  certification,  appointment,  and  supervision 
of  teachers,  the  course  of  study,  and  the  building  of  school 
houses  came  to  be  centralized  in  the  school  committee  or 
board  of  education. 

Selection  of  Teachers  by  the  Superintendent  of  Schools. 
The  fifth  and  present  stage  to  be  noted  in  this  evolution  of 
the  appointment  of  teachers  is  the  delegation  of  more  or 
less  of  the  board's  responsibility  for  the  appointment  of 
teachers  to  the  superintendent  of  schools.  For  the  same 
reasons  which  prompted  the  town  meeting,  and  later  the 
selectmen,  to  delegate  this  function,  the  board  has  found 
it  necessary  or  desirable  to  delegate  those  functions  which 
are  technical,  and  also  those  which  demand  continual  at- 
tention, to  properly  qualified  executive  and  administrative 
officers.  In  order  to  discharge  the  functions  directly  per- 
taining to  instruction,  the  office  of  superintendent  of 
schools  has  been  created.  The  movement  for  the  establish- 
ment of  this  office  followed  the  educational  renaissance  of 
the  time  of  Horace  Mann  and  began  in  Buffalo,1  N.  Y.,  in 
1837.  Such  offices  were  created  in  widely  scattered  sec- 
tions of  the  country,  until  now  the  office  of  city  superin- 
tendent of  schools  is  found  in  every  city  of  importance  in 
the  United  States.  To  the  superintendent  has  been  dele- 
gated varying  degrees  of  the  board's  responsibility  for  the 
appointment  of  teachers. 

Summary.  The  preceding  sketch  is  a  brief  story  of  the 
efforts  of  the  people  of  a  community  to  provide  ways  and 
means  of  selecting  suitable  teachers  for  the  instruction  of 
their  youth.    The  passing  from  one  stage  to  the  next  marks 

1  Chamberlain,  The  Growth  of  Responsibility  and  Enlargement  of  Power  of  the 
City  School  Superintendent,  pp.  374,  375.  See  also  Dexter,  History  of  Education 
in  the  United  States,  p.  193. 


EVOLUTION  OF  THE  APPOINTIVE  AGENCIES        7 

the  failure  or  the  outgrowing  of  one  method  of  selection 
and  the  adoption  of  another  which  in  turn  is  to  be  succeeded. 
This  historical  evolution  reveals,  throughout,  the  working 
of  the  principle  of  differentiation  of  functions  and  the  dele- 
gation of  the  performance  of  those  functions  by  a  large 
body  to  a  smaller  body  or  to  a  single  individual.  In  early 
times  the  community  as  a  whole  dealt  with  the  teacher 
directly.  Now  the  community  creates  a  board  of  educa- 
tion to  assume  the  common  responsibility  for  providing 
education.  This  board  in  turn,  either  voluntarily  or  as 
required  by  law,  delegates  the  discharge  of  particular  func- 
tions to  committees  of  its  own  members  or  to  executive  or 
administrative  officers  whom  it  selects.  From  the  selection 
of  teachers  by  the  community  there  has  been  evolved  in 
most  cities  a  system  of  selection  by  standing  committees 
of  the  board  of  education,  by  the  board  itself,  or  by  the 
superintendent  of  schools,  or  by  some  combination  of 
these  three.  Thus,  in  the  appointment  of  teachers  the 
community  has  relinquished  its  direct  participation  to  a 
board  of  education,  which  also  in  many  cities  has  in  part 
turned  that  responsibility  over  to  the  superintendent  of 
schools.  Thus,  through  an  evolutionary  process  of  trial 
and  failure  our  present  methods  of  appointing  teachers 
have  been  gradually  developed.  It  will  be  interesting  and 
profitable  to  keep  in  mind  the  above  process  of  evolution 
when  considering  the  methods  of  appointing  teachers  dis- 
cussed in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER   II 

PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS 
IN  CITIES 

Purpose  and  Scope  of  this  Chapter 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  show  the  methods  of 
appointing  teachers  in  seventy-three  representative  cities  of 
the  United  States.  The  study  will  show  how  generally  the 
board  of  education  directly  discharges  this  function,  and 
how  generally  the  board  voluntarily,  or  as  required  by  law, 
delegates  it  either  to  a  standing  committee  of  its  own  mem- 
bers, or  to  the  superintendent  of  schools,  or  to  both. 

This  Study  Based  on  the  Rules.1  The  data  for  this  chapter 
have  been  prepared  from  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the 
board  of  education  in  each  city.  The  state  laws  2  or  the 
city  charter  3  give  the  city  board  of  education  the  authority 
to  make  such  rules  and  regulations  for  its  own  government 
and  for  the  government  of  the  schools  as  it  deems  necessary 
or  desirable.    When  these  rules  are  properly  promulgated 

1  The  term  rules  is  used  throughout  the  monograph  to  mean  the  rules  and 
regulations  adopted  by  the  board  of  education  for  its  own  government  and  for  the 
government  of  the  schools. 

2  "The  Board  shall  have  power  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  for 
the  organization,  grading  and  government  in  their  school  district.  .  .  ."  —  Revised 
Statutes  of  Missouri,  1909,  sec.  10785. 

'  "Every  such  Board  of  Education  .  .  .  shall  have  power  to  fix  the  time  of 
its  meetings  and  proceedings,  for  the  government,  regulation  and  management 
of  the  public  schools  and  school  property  in  such  city,  for  the  transaction  of  its 
business,  and  the  examination,  qualification  and  employment  of  teachers,  which 
rules  and  by-laws  shall  be  binding  on  such  Board  of  Education  and  all  parties  deal- 
ing with  it  until  formally  repealed,  .  .  ."  —  Charter  of  the  Board  of  Education  of 
the  City  of  St.  Louis,  1897,  sec.  3. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    9 

they  have  the  force  of  law,  not  only  over  the  board  of  edu- 
cation, but  also  over  those  dealing  with  the  board.  That 
these  rules  may  have  stability  and  may  control  the  busi- 
ness activities  of  the  board,  provision  l  is  usually  made  in 
the  rules  themselves  whereby  more  than  a  bare  plurality 
vote  is  necessary  to  set  them  aside.  To  some  extent  the 
rules  are  based  on  state  laws;  they  are,  however,  largely 
the  result  of  the  board's  deliberate  action,  for  which  the 
board  alone  is  responsible.  As  such  the  rules  embody 
the  board's  general  conception  of  its  functions:  of  how  the 
school  system  ought  to  be  run,  of  the  function  of  each  of 
the  administrative  agencies,  and  of  principles  of  school 
administration  in  general.  From  this  it  becomes  clear  that 
a  study  of  the  rules  of  the  board  of  education  is  a  study 
not  only  of  the  laws  made  by  boards  of  education  governing 
the  conduct  of  their  business,  but  also  of  the  philosophy 
of  educational  administration  which  the  boards  entertain. 
What  a  Study  of  Rules  does  not  Show.  Obviously  a  study 
of  the  rules  alone  cannot  show  the  spirit  according  to  which 
the  rules  are  administered.  Neither  can  such  a  study  show 
how  far  practice  deviates  from  the  prescribed  regulations. 
Such  a  study  cannot  show  how  much  unofficial  authority, 
or  influence,  or  power  is  exercised  by  the  superintendent, 
by  a  committee  of  the  board  (if  there  be  one),  or  by  the 
board  of  education  itself  in  the  appointment  of  teachers. 
When  a  rule  provides,  for  example,  that  the  superintendent 
nominate  candidates,  we  do  not  know  how  much  weight 
that  nomination  has  with  the  board  or  its  committee. 
Further,  when  a  rule  provides  that  a  committee  of  the 
board  "shall  make  its  choice  from  the  proper  eligible  list, 
or  from  the  nominees  of  the  superintendent  of  schools," 

1  "All  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Board  or  any  portion  thereof,  may  be  sus- 
pended at  any  time  by  a  two-third  vote  of  the  Board."  —  Rides,  Columbus,  1913, 
sec.  36. 

2  Hand-Book,  Philadelphia,  191 2,  By-Law  xv,  sec.  3. 


IO    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

we  do  not  know  whether  the  practice  is  to  accept  or  to 
ignore  the  nominations  of  the  superintendent.  Again,  in 
case  the  superintendent's  nomination  has  to  be  approved 
by  the  committee  of  the  board  before  the  board  takes 
action,  we  do  not  know  how  much  significance  the  com- 
mittee's approval  has  with  the  board.  These  are  all  im- 
portant matters,  but  they  are  outside  the  limits  of  our 
study.  They  could  be  determined  only  after  personal  in- 
vestigations in  each  city,  and  obviously  we  have  not  under- 
taken to  make  such  investigations. 

What  a  Study  of  the  Rules  Shows.  This  study  of  the 
rules  has  been  for  the  single  purpose  of  showing  how  generally 
the  board  of  education  is  itself  discharging  its  legal  re- 
sponsibility for  appointing  teachers,  and  how  generally  it 
is  delegating  that  function  to  a  committee  of  its  own  mem- 
bers or  to  its  executive  officer,  the  superintendent  of  schools. 
This  is  the  kernel  of  our  study.  For  our  purpose,  there- 
fore, it  is  not  necessary  to  determine  how  much  weight  the 
board  gives  to  the  recommendations  either  of  its  standing 
committee  on  teachers  or  of  the  superintendent;  it  is  im- 
portant to  know  that  each  does  or  does  not  participate  in 
the  appointment  of  teachers. 

All  other  considerations  are  secondary  to  the  one  question, 
whether  the  highly  professional  and  technical  function  of 
appointing  teachers  is  being  discharged  directly  by  a  board 
of  education  consisting  of  laymen,  or  whether  it  is  being 
delegated  by  the  board  to  the  superintendent  of  schools, 
who  is  presumably  selected  by  the  board  because  he  pos- 
sesses superior  knowledge  of  such  educational  matters  as 
the  qualifications  of  good  teachers.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that 
the  rules  cannot  reveal  the  spirit  in  which  the  appointment 
of  teachers  is  performed,  nevertheless  they  do  show  the 
educational  philosophy  of  the  board,  as  well  as  the  formal 
method  of  procedure  legally  approved  by  the  board  for 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    II 

appointing  teachers.     This  method  of  procedure  is  the 
important  feature  of  our  study. 

How  Data  were  Prepared 

Rules  not  Always  Clear.  The  rules  do  not  always  show 
logically  or  clearly  what  the  procedure  in  appointing  teach- 
ers really  is.    Consider  the  following: 

Subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Board,  the  Committee  on  Instruc- 
tion, Teachers  and  Curriculum  shall  make  all  nominations  of  teach- 
ers in  writing  to  the  Board  after  hearing  recommendations  from  the 
Superintendent  and  the  principal  of  the  school  in  which  the  nominee 
is  to  serve.1 

What  does  "subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Board"  mean? 
Does  it  mean  that  the  committee  nominates  teachers  when 
the  board  is  willing  to  have  it  do  so?  Or  does  it  mean 
that  the  nomination  constitutes  an  appointment  when 
approved  by  the  board?  Nowhere  in  the  rules  does  the 
term  appoint  (or  any  synonymous  term)  appear.  I  assume 
that  a  recommendation  by  the  superintendent  and  a  nomi- 
nation by  the  committee  of  the  board,  "subject  to  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Board,"  constitute  the  process  of  appointment. 
Use  of  Terms  not  Uniform.  The  terms  nominate  and 
recommend  do  not  appear  to  have  any  distinctive  signifi- 
cance, for  they  are  used  differently  in  different  cities.  For 
example,  in  Cambridge,  Mass.,  the  superintendent  recom- 
mends candidates,  a  committee  of  the  board  nominates 
them  to  the  board,  and  the  board  approves  the  nomina- 
tions.2 In  Paterson,  N.  J.,  the  superintendent  recommends 
candidates  to  a  committee  of  the  board,  which  committee 
in  turn  recommends  them  to  the  board.3     In  Syracuse, 

1  Rules,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  191 2,  sec.  610. 

2  See  rule  previously  quoted. 

8  "The  Committee  shall  recommend  to  the  Board  from  time  to  time  for  ap- 
pointment, promotion  or  transfer  in  the  schools  under  its  supervision,  any  duly 
licensed  persons  who  are  recommended  by  the  City  Superintendent,  and  who  are 
in  its  judgment  duly  qualified."  —  Rules,  191 1,  sec.  26. 


12     TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

N.  Y.,  the  superintendent  nominates  candidates,  a  com- 
mittee of  the  board  recommends  them  to  the  board,  and 
the  board  appoints  them.1 

Need  of  Clearer  Definition  of  Procedure.  It  appears  from 
the  foregoing  illustrations  (many  more  could  be  cited)  that 
there  is  need  of  a  clearer  definition  of  the  procedure  in  ap- 
pointing teachers,  and  also  need  of  a  more  consistent  use 
of  terms.  For  example,  where  the  board,  a  standing  com- 
mittee, and  the  superintendent  participate  in  the  appoint- 
ment, it  does  not  seem  reasonable  to  think  that  the 
superintendent  and  the  committee  perform  the  same  func- 
tion as  in  some  cases  the  phraseology  of  the  rules  would 
lead  one  to  believe. 

Methods  Used  to  Minimize  Possibilities  of  Misstatements. 
These  illustrations  have  been  cited  to  show  some  of  the 
difficulties  involved  in  interpreting  the  rules  and  classifying 
the  methods  of  appointing  teachers  in  various  cities.  Every 
effort  has  been  made  to  represent  accurately  the  method 
in  each  city.  Except  where  specially  noted  to  the  contrary, 
statements  of  fact  have  been  verified  by  the  superintendents 
concerned.  This  has  made  it  certain  that  the  rules  have 
been  correctly  interpreted,  and  also  that  the  present  prac- 
tice is  in  agreement  with  those  rules.  Further,  to  avoid 
misinterpreting  the  terminology  of  the  rules,  the  identical 
phraseology  of  the  rules  has  been  employed  in  stating  facts 
in  the  following  tables.  The  words  nominate,  recommend, 
approve,  appoint,  et  al.,  are  used  as  and  when  they  were 
used  in  the  rules  and  regulations  defining  the  procedure  of 
appointing  teachers.  Also  the  rules  have  been  quoted  ver- 
batim in  any  discussion  where  matters  of  technical  detail 
are  of  importance.   By  these  precautions  it  is  hoped  that 

1  "He  [superintendent]  shall  nominate  in  writing  all  officers  and  teachers.  .  .  . 
The  Committee  shall  .  .  .  ,  upon  the  nomination  of  the  Superintendent  of  Schools, 
recommend  to  the  Board  .  .  .  ,"  etc.  —  Statutes,  By-Laws,  and  Rules,  Depart- 
ment of  Education,  1913,  sec.  8. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    1 3 

both  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  procedure  in  each  city 
are  correctly  represented  in  the  tabulation  of  facts  and  in 
the  subsequent  discussion. 

Tabulation  of  Facts  Concerning  Appointment 

The  following  tabulations  show  the  part  officially  played 
by  the  superintendent  of  schools,  by  a  committee  of  the 
board  of  education,1  and  by  the  board  of  education 2  itself 
in  the  appointment  of  teachers  in  the  cities  indicated. 
Cities  are  grouped  as  first  class,  second  class,  and  third 
class,  as  previously  defined.3  They  are  also  separated  in 
the  lists  to  show  divisions  of  the  country.4 


(a)  First  Class  Cities 

Cities 

Superintendent 

Committee  of  Board 

Board  of  Education 

Boston 

Appoints 

No  committee 

Approves 6 

New  York 

Bd.  of  supts. 

nominates 

Recommends 

Appoints  • 

Buffalo 

Appoints 

No  committee 

No  board 

Newark 

Recommends 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Philadelphia 

Recommends 

Selects 

Approves 7 

Pittsburgh 

Recommends 

Takes  no  action 

Appoints 8 

1  This  general  term  covers  that  committee  which  participates  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  teachers  in  each  city:  such  as  the  committee  on  teachers,  committee  on 
instruction,  committee  on  examination  and  certification,  etc. 

2  This  term  covers  school  committee,  board  of  school  directors,  board  of  school 
inspectors,  and  other  titles  by  which  this  agency  is  known  for  different  cities. 

8  See  Introduction. 

4  See  Appendix  A. 

6  "In  an  original  appointment  of  subordinate  teachers,  he  [superintendent] 
shall  consult  the  principal  of  the  school  or  district  and  the  Assistant  Superintend- 
ent in  charge  thereof."  —  Sec.  105. 

6  "For  all  purposes  affecting  the  appointment,  promotion  or  transfer  of  teach- 
ers in  any  school,  the  district  Superintendent  assigned  to  the  district  in  which  such 
school  is  situated,  the  principal  of  such  school,  .  .  .  shall  have  seats  in  the  Board 
of  Superintendents,  with  votes  on  such  proposition."  —  Charter,  1901,  sec.  1090. 

7  The  committee  is  not  required  to  select  a  teacher  whom  the  superintendent 
recommends;  it  may  select  one  from  the  eligible  list  without  or  disregarding  his 
recommendation. 

8  "No  teacher  shall  receive  an  appointment  in  the  schools  of  Pittsburgh  who 
is  not  recommended  to  the  Board  by  the  Superintendent  of  Schools."  —  Art.  vii, 
sec.  14. 


14    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


Cities 

Superintendent 

Committee  of  Board 

Board  of  Education 

Baltimore 

Nominates 

Takes  no  action 

Appoints l 

Washington 

Nominates 

Approves 

Appoints 

New  Orleans 

Nominates 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Cleveland 

Appoints 

Approves 

Approves 

Cincinnati 

Appoints 

Approves 

Approves 

Chicago 

Nominates 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Detroit 

Recommends 

Recommends 

Appoints 2 

Milwaukee 

Recommends 

Employs 

Approves 

Minneapolis 

Nominates 

Approves 

Appoints 

St.  Louis 

Recommends 

Approves 

Appoints 

San  Francisco 

Takes  no  action 

Employs 3 

Los  Angeles 

Recommends 

Recommends 

Appoints 

(b)  Second  Class  Cities 

Cambridge 

Recommends 

Nominates 

Approves 4 

Fall  River 

Takes  no  action 

Nominates 

Elects 

Lowell  * 

Recommends 

Approves 

Appoints 

Worcester 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Approves 

Providence 

Nominates 

Examines  into 

Appoints 5 

Bridgeport 

Recommends 

Recommends 

Appoints 

New  Haven 

Appoints 

Takes  no  action 

May  reject 6 

Albany 

Recommends 

No  committee 

Appoints 

Rochester 

Nominates 

No  committee 

Appoints 7 

Syracuse 

Nominates 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Jersey  City 

Reports 
candidates 

Recommends 

Elects 

Paterson 

Recommends 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Scranton 

Recommends 

Approves 

Appoints 

*  Data  not  confirmed  by  the  superintendent. 

1  The  board  of  superintendents  approves  the  nominations  of  elementary  school 
teachers. 

2  The  mayor  approves  the  appointment  of  teachers. 

3  The  superintendent  is  a  member  of  the  board  of  education,  and  hence  has  a 
part  in  the  employment  of  teachers. 

4  The  rules  require  that  the  committee  on  instruction  nominate  candidates 
"after  hearing  recommendations  from  the  Superintendent  and  the  principal  of 
the  school  in  which  the  candidate  is  to  serve."  —  Rules,  1912,  sec.  610. 

6  There  is  a  different  committee  on  teachers  for  the  elementary  and  high  schools, 
each  examines  into  the  qualifications  of  teachers  for  its  respective  schools. 

*6  "Any  appointment  by  the  Superintendent  may  be  rejected  by  a  vote  of  five 
members  of  the  Board,  but  not  later  than  the  time  of  the  next  regular  meeting 
after  such  appointment."  —  Rules,  1910,  Sec.  41. 

7  Superintendent  and  principal  act  jointly  in  nominating  teachers. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS 


IS 


Cities 

Superintendent 

Committee  of  Board 

Board  of  Education 

Richmond 

Recommends 

Nominates 

Elects 

Atlanta 

Nominates 

Approves 

Confirms * 

Louisville 

Recommends 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Memphis 

Nominates 

Recommends 

Appoints 2 

Nashville 

Takes  no  action 

Takes  no  action 

Elects3 

Birmingham 

Nominates 

Approves 

Elects 

Columbus 

Appoints 

Examines  into 

Confirms 

Dayton 

Appoints 

Inquire  as  to 

Confirms 

Toledo  * 

Appoints 

Confirms 4 

Indianapolis 

Appoints 

Takes  no  action 

May  reject 

Grand  Rapids 

Nominates 

Nominates 

Appoints  5 

St.  Paul 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Confirms 

Omaha 

Recommends 

Nominates 

Appoints 

Kansas  City 

Nominates 

Reports  on 

Appoints 

Denver 

Nominates 

Appoints 6 

Seattle 

Recommends 

Takes  no  action 

Appoints 

Portland 

Nominates 

Takes  no  action 

Appoints 7 

Oakland 

Compiles  list 

Selects 

Approves 

(c)  Third  Class  Cities 

Portland 

Nominates 

Approves 

Appoints 

Manchester 

Nominates 

Recommends 

Appoints 8 

Burlington 

Appoints 

Advises 

Approves 9 

Wilmington 

Nominates 

Advises 

Appoints 

Wheeling 

Takes  no  action 

Chooses  teachers 

Confirms 

*  Data  not  confirmed  by  the  superintendent. 

1  "Superintendent  of  Schools  is  supposed  to  nominate  applicants.  During  the 
last  three  or  four  years  the  Superintendent  was  not  allowed  to  have  the  teachers 
he  wished."  —  Letter  of  January  16,  1914. 

2  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  superintendent  and  committee  act  jointly  or 
consecutively. 

8  A  board  member  nominates,  and  the  board  elects. 

4  The  appointment  of  teachers  is  not  mentioned  under  duties  of  committee 
on  education. 

6  The  superintendent  and  the  educational  committee  act  jointly. 

6  Data  incomplete;  correct  as  far  as  stated. 

7  Any  member  of  the  board  may  also  nominate  a  teacher. 

8  Superintendent  says  in  letter:  "Superintendent  by  rule  nominates;  in  prac- 
tice the  sub-committee  may  recommend  anybody.  They  are  not  confined  to  the 
Superintendent's  nominee." 

•  Superintendent  says:  "Superintendent  appoints  with  advice  of  Committee 
on  Teachers  and  Instruction." 


16    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


Cities 

Superintendent 

Committee  of  Board 

Board  of  Education 

Charlotte 

Takes  no  action 

Nominates 

Appoints ■ 

Charleston 

Takes  no  action 

Furnishes  a  list 

Elects2 

Jacksonville 

Nominates 

No  committee 

Appoints 

Meridian 

Recommends 

No  committee 

Appoints 

San  Antonio  * 

Recommends 

Approves 

Appoints 

Little  Rock 

Nominates 

Appoints 

Approves 

Oklahoma 

Recommends 

Approves 

Appoints 

Des  Moines 

Recommends 

Approves 

Appoints 

Fargo 

Nominates 

No  data 

Appoints 

Sioux  Falls 

Recommends 

No  committee 

Elects 

Kansas  City 

Nominates 

Recommends 

Appoints 

Butte 

Recommends 

Nominates 

Appoints 

Cheyenne 

Recommends 

Recommends 

Appoints 3 

Albuquerque 

Nominates 

Takes  no  action 

Appoints 4 

Tucson 

Nominates 

No  committee 

Appoints 

Salt  Lake 

Nominates 

Approves 

Appoints 

Reno 

Recommends 

No  committee 

Appoints 

Boise 

Nominates 

Approves 

Appoints 

*  Data  not  confirmed  by  the  Superintendent. 


Types  of  Procedure  in  Appointing  Teachers 

The  Method  in  Each  City  Classified  as  a  Unit.  Since 
boards,  voluntarily  or  as  required  by  law,  delegate  varying 
degrees  of  their  authority  for  making  appointments  to  com- 
mittees of  their  own  members  and  to  superintendents,  it  is 
impossible,  within  the  limits  of  this  study,  to  determine  the 
precise  amount  of  authority  exercised  by  each  appointive 
agency.  For  our  purpose  the  most  feasible  method  of  classi- 
fying methods  of  appointment  is  one  based  on  the  method 
of  procedure  in  each  city  considered  as  a  unit.  This  basis 
of  classification  obviates  the  necessity  of  considering  the 

1  "The  Superintendent  and  the  Assistant  Superintendent  are  advisory  members 
of  the  Committee."  —  From  a  letter. 

2  The  superintendent  as  such  takes  no  action;  he  is  a  member  of  the  examin- 
ing board  which  furnishes  a  list  of  candidates. 

3  The  superintendent  and  a  committee  act  jointly  in  recommending  teachers. 

4  Data  as  furnished  by  superintendent;  rules  provide  for  committee  action. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS     I J 

relative  amount  of  official  authority  exercised  by  the  agen- 
cies involved,  and  considers  the  method  of  procedure  in 
each  city  as  a  complete  process. 

Classes  Defined:  C,  B,  and  A.  The  different  methods  of 
procedure  can  be  classified  into  three  large  classes,  accord- 
ing to  the  apparent  extent  of  the  superintendent's  official 
participation  in  the  procedure  of  making  appointments. 
In  Class  C  the  superintendent  does  not  participate  in  the 
appointment  of  teachers.  In  Class  B  the  superintendent 
takes  the  initial  step  in  making  the  appointments  by  nomi- 
nating or  recommending  candidates.  In  Class  A  the  superin- 
tendent makes  the  appointments,  subject  to  varying  degrees 
of  supervision  by  the  board  and  one  of  its  committees. 

Types  Defined:  i  to  g.  In  each  of  the  above  classes  three 
distinct  types  of  procedure  are  distinguishable.  These 
types  are  based  on  the  apparent  extent  of  the  board's  or 
the  committee's  official  participation  in  the  making  of  ap- 
pointments. The  following  statements  will  make  clear  the 
definition  of  the  three  classes  and  of  the  nine  types. 

CLASS  C 

The  superintendent  does  not  officially  participate  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  teachers.    The  board,  or  a  committee  of  the  board 
and  the  board,  make  the  appointments. 
Type  i.  The  board  makes  the  appointments. 
Type  2.  A  committee  of  the  board  takes  the  initial  step 

and  the  board  makes  the  appointment. 
Type  3.  A  committee  of  the  board  makes  the  appoint- 
ments, subject  to  approval  by  the  board. 

CLASS  B 
The  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step  in  making  an 
appointment,  and  the  board,  or  a  committee  of  the  board  and 
the  board,  complete  the  appointment. 


1 8    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Type4.1  The  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step,  and 
the  board  makes  the  appointment. 

Type  5.  The  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step,  a  com- 
mittee of  the  board  approves  the  action,  and 
the  board  makes  the  appointment. 

Type  6.  The  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step,  a 
committee  of  the  board  makes  the  appointment, 
subject  to  approval  by  the  board. 

CLASS  A 

The  superintendent  makes  the  appointment,  and  a  committee 
of  the  board  and  the  board  consecutively  confirm  it,  or  the  board 
alone  approves  it,  or  the  appointment  is  effective  without 
confirmation. 

Type  7.   The  superintendent  makes  the  appointment  and 

the  board  approves  it. 
Type  8.   The  superintendent  makes  the  appointment,  a 

committee  of  the  board  approves  it,  and  the 

board  confirms  it. 
Type  9.   The   superintendent   makes   the   appointment, 

subject  only  to  rejection  by  the  board. 

Classification  of  Cities  according  to  Classes  and 
Types  of  Procedure 

class  c 

The  superintendent  does  not  officially  participate  in  the 
appointment  of  teachers.  The  board,  or  a  committee  of  the 
board  and  the  board,  make  the  appointments. 

The  distinctive  feature  of  the  cities  in  Class  C  is  that  the 
boards  do  not  voluntarily,  nor  are  they  required  by  law  to, 

1  For  convenience  in  discussion,  the  types  of  appointment  are  numbered  con- 
secutively from  1  to  9. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    19 

delegate  any  authority  to  the  superintendent  of  schools  in 
the  appointment  of  teachers.  It  is  possible  that  by  com- 
mon consent  the  superintendent  has  some  influence  in  the 
selection  of  teachers.  The  rules  which  establish  the  legal 
procedure  of  the  board  do  not  mention  the  superintendent 
in  the  appointment  of  teachers,  hence  he  cannot  officially 
and  legally  participate  in  such  appointments.  In  the  cities 
in  Class  C  appointment  is  made  exclusively  by  a  lay  board 
of  education,  or  by  a  committee  of  the  board  consisting  of 
lay  members.  Following  is  a  classification  of  cities  in 
Class  C  according  to  Types  1,  2,  and  3. 

Type  1.  The  board  makes  the  appointments. 

NASHVILLE 

Nashville  is  the  only  city  covered  by  our  study  which 
practices  this  method  of  appointment.  The  rule  on  ap- 
pointment of  teachers  is  as  follows: 

Applicants  for  positions  as  teachers  shall  be  placed  in  nomination 
by  a  member  of  the  Board.  Members  of  the  Board  may  from  the 
floor,  state  anything  for  or  against  an  applicant;  but  it  shall  not  be 
in  order  for  anyone,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  solicit  the  vote  of  a 
member  for  an  applicant  while  the  Board  is  in  session.1 

The  rules  defining  the  duties  of  the  superintendent  do 
not  mention  the  appointment  of  teachers.  The  rules  do 
give  him  the  authority  to  "nominate  his  clerk,  and  janitors 
to  the  board.' '  Further,  the  rules  give  to  the  superintendent 
the  thankless  task  of  suspending  "teachers  from  service 
for  neglect  of  duty  or  violation  of  prescribed  rules." 

A  logical  distribution  of  authority  and  responsibility 
requires  that  the  power  to  suspend  teachers  be  lodged  in  the 
same  agency  which  exercises  the  power  to  appoint  teachers. 
Then  the  allegiance  of  teachers  is  not  divided,  and  the 

1  Rules,  191 1,  chap,  v,  sec.  6. 


20    TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

public  can  hold  the  proper  agency  accountable  for  the  kind 
of  teachers  appointed.  With  the  board  responsible  for  the 
appointing  of  teachers  and  the  superintendent  responsible 
for  discharging  ineffective  ones,  there  is  no  way  of  holding 
either  to  account.  The  prevailing  tendency  in  American 
cities  is  to  hold  the  superintendent  responsible  for  the 
instruction  in  the  schools;  but  to  do  this  in  Nashville 
would  be  a  grave  injustice  to  the  superintendent,  who  is 
in  no  way  responsible  for  the  kind  of  teachers  who  are 
appointed. 

Type  2.   A  committee  of  the  board  takes  the  initial  step  l 
and  the  board  makes  the  appointment. 

The  following  cities  employ  this  method:  Fall  River, 
Charlotte,  N.  C,  and  Charleston,  S.  C. 

FALL  RIVER 

The  rules  of  the  school  committee  do  not  mention  the 
superintendent  of  schools  in  describing  the  appointment  of 
teachers.  Under  "examination  and  election  of  teachers "  is 
the  following 2 : 

A  majority  vote  of  the  whole  Board  shall  be  necessary  to  elect  or 
remove  a  teacher,  and  each  sub-committee  on  visitation  shall  have 
the  power  to  nominate  teachers  for  its  respective  schools. 

The  board  consists  of  nine  members  and  is  divided  into 
"three  sub-committees  on  visitation  of  three  members 
each."  To  "each  of  the  three  committees  on  visitation"  is 
assigned  "a  section  of  the  schools  for  visitation  and  general 
care."  These  sub-committees  nominate  teachers  to  the 
school  committee. 

1  /.«.,  the  committee  nominates,  or  recommends,  or  takes  some  other  similar 
action. 

*  Rules,  1009,  sec.  36. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    21 
CHARLESTON,    S.  C. 

In  Charleston  the  examining  board  consists  of  the  chair- 
man of  the  board  of  education,  the  superintendent,  and 
two  principals  in  rotation,  and  at  least  one  member  of  the 
standing  committee  on  examination.    This  board 

reports  only  the  first  three  competitors  who  have  attained  a  general 
average  of  seventy-five  per  cent  or  over,  and  one  from  the  said  three 
shall  be  chosen  by  the  Board  to  fill  the  vacancy. 

According  to  the  superintendent  the  above 

provision  applies  only  to  the  grade  schools.  In  the  high  school,  the 
appointment  of  a  teacher  is  left  practically  to  the  Superintendent  of 
Schools,  the  Principal  of  the  School  and  the  Commissioner  of  the 
School,  such  appointment  being  subject  to  confirmation  by  the 
Board.1 

The  rules  do  not  provide  for  this  arrangement.  The 
superintendent,  as  a  member  of  the  examining  board,  in 
an  indirect  way  participates  in  making  the  appointment. 
The  rules  give  him  no  official  authority  other  than  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  examining  board. 

Historically  boards  of  education  have  always  found  it 
difficult  to  perform  executive  functions  and  have  been  com- 
pelled by  force  of  circumstances  to  delegate  the  discharge 
of  such  functions.  The  boards  in  the  cities  of  this  type 
have  thought  it  desirable  or  have  found  it  necessary  to 
delegate  to  a  standing  committee  of  their  own  members 
the  functions  of  nominating  candidates  for  teaching  posi- 
tions. Since  ordinarily  such  nominees  are  appointed  by  the 
board  without  discussion,  it  is  clear  that  a  nomination  by 
a  committee  virtually  means  an  appointment.  The  fore- 
going is  an  early  form  of  delegating  executive  functions  to 
executive  officers  chosen  by  the  board. 

1  In  a  letter  dated  April  25,  1913. 


22    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Type  3.   A  committee  of  the  board  makes  the  appointments, 
subject  to  approval  by  the  board. 

WHEELING,   W.   VA. 

The  only  city  operating  under  this  method  of  appoint- 
ing teachers  is  Wheeling,  W.  Va.  According  to  the  super- 
intendent,1 "Appointments  are  made  ordinarily  by  the 
Commissioners  of  sub-districts/'  subject  to  confirmation 
by  the  board.  The  board  consists  of  twenty-one  members 
elected  by  the  people  from  sub-districts  which  do  not 
exactly  coincide  with  the  wards  of  the  city.  There  is  a 
standing  committee  of  the  board  for  each  sub-district.  It 
is  this  committee  which  appoints  the  teachers  for  the  schools 
within  its  district.  The  foregoing  makes  it  clear  that 
teachers  are  not  appointed  in  Wheeling  by  a  central  author- 
ity which  is  at  least  theoretically  responsible  for  education 
in  the  city,  but  they  are  appointed  by  a  small  committee 
which  is  in  charge  of  the  schools  within  a  district. 

The  board  of  education  in  each  city  in  Class  C  has  em- 
ployed a  superintendent  of  schools.  In  its  rules  each  board 
has  charged  the  superintendent  with  the  supervision  of  the 
schools,  with  assisting  teachers  in  their  work,  and  with  the 
promotion  of  educational  progress  in  the  city;  and  yet 
the  board  has  made  it  impossible  for  the  superintendent  to 
be  much  more  than  a  clerk  of  the  board,  by  denying  him 
any  participation  in  the  appointment  of  teachers. 

The  boards  have  charged  the  superintendents  with  large 
responsibilities  and  have  not  given  them  the  logical  and 
necessary  authority  for  discharging  those  responsibilities. 
They  have  made  the  superintendents  responsible  for  in- 
struction, and  have  given  them  no  authority  to  exercise 
any  control  over  instruction  except  after  teachers  are  ap- 

1  In  a  letter  dated  July  1,  19 13. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    23 

pointed.  The  most  effective  method  of  securing  good 
teachers  is  to  be  sure  that  none  but  good  teachers  are 
employed  in  the  first  instance.  A  superintendent  cannot 
justly  be  held  responsible  for  the  character  of  work  done 
by  teachers  whom  he  would  not  have  appointed. 

A  superintendent  who  is  qualified  to  be  charged  with  the 
responsibility  of  maintaining  a  high  grade  of  instruction  in 
the  schools  is  certainly  better  qualified  to  appoint  teachers 
than  is  a  board  of  education  of  laymen  or  a  committee  of 
such  a  board.  This  has  been  the  experience  of  cities  gen- 
erally. Most  cities  have  long  passed  out  of  the  historical 
stage  in  which  these  cities  are  found  to-day  in  respect  to 
appointing  teachers.  These  cities  are  not  far  removed 
from  the  old  system  of  appointing  teachers  by  a  prudential 
committee  which  prevailed  generally  a  little  less  than  a 
century  ago  in  New  England. 

CLASS B 

The  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step  l  in  making  an 
appointment,  and  the  board,  or  a  committee  of  the  board  and 
the  board,  complete  the  appointment. 

The  cities  in  class  B  are  characterized  particularly  by 
the  fact  that  the  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step  in 
the  process  leading  to  the  appointment  of  teachers.  This 
class  differs  from  Class  C  in  the  fact  that  in  Class  C  the 
superintendent  does  not  officially  participate  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  teachers. 

Cities  in  Class  B  are  similar  to  cities  in  Class  A  (discus- 
sion of  which  is  to  follow)  in  the  fact  that  the  superintendent 
initiates  the  process  of  appointment  in  both  cases.  Cities 
in  Class  B  differ  from  those  in  Class  A  in  the  fact  that  in 
Class  B  the  superintendent  only  nominates  or  recommends 

1  I.e.,  the  superintendent  nominates  or  recommends  candidates,  or  takes  some 
similar  action. 


24    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

candidates  and  the  board  does  the  appointing,  while  in 
Class  A  the  superintendent  appoints  the  teachers. 

Following  is  a  classification  of  the  cities  in  Class  B  ar- 
ranged according  to  Types  4,  5,  and  6. 

Type  4.    The  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step,  and  the 
board  makes  the  appointment. 

The  following  are  the  cities: 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Pittsburgh 

Albany- 

Jacksonville,  Fla. 

Baltimore 

Rochester 

Meridian,  Miss. 

Seattle 

Albuquerque,  N.  M. 

Portland,  Ore.1 

Sioux  Falls,  S.D. 
Tucson,  Ariz. 
Reno,  Nev. 

PITTSBURGH 

The  superintendent 

shall,  when  a  vacancy  occurs  in  the  teaching  force,  recommend  to  the 
Board  a  person  for  such  vacancy,  and  he  shall  fill  such  vacancy 
temporarily,  from  some  source  of  supply,  until  appointment  thereto 
is  made  by  the  Board.2 

This  is  a  clearly  defined  procedure,  and  fixes  definitely 
on  the  superintendent  the  responsibility  for  recommending 
candidates,  and  on  the  board  the  responsibility  for  making 
the  appointment. 

The  procedure  is  further  defined  by  the  following  rule : 

No  teacher  shall  receive  an  appointment  in  the  Schools  of  Pitts- 
burgh who  is  not  recommended  to  the  Board  by  the  Superintendent  of 
Schools.3 

By  this  provision  the  superintendent  is  made  responsible 
for  the  appointment  of  every  teacher  who  enters  the  school 

1  It  is  uncertain  whether  Portland,  Ore.,  should  be  classified  here  or  under 
Type  1. 

2  Rules  (no  date),  art.  viii,  sec.  15. 
■  Ibid.,  art.  vii,  sec.  14. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    25 

system.  The  board  alone  cannot  select  teachers;  the 
superintendent  must  take  the  initiative.  The  board  could 
force  the  superintendent  to  appoint  its  candidates  by  con- 
tinuously refusing  to  appoint  the  persons  recommended  by 
the  superintendent.  However,  few  boards  would  be  will- 
ing to  bear  so  grave  and  so  definitely  fixed  a  responsibility. 

ROCHESTER 

The  Superintendent  and  the  principal  of  the  school  constitute  a 
Board  on  nomination  of  teachers  for  such  school  from  the  first  twenty- 
five  names  on  the  eligible  list  for  teachers,  .  .  .  The  Board  of  Edu- 
cation must  consider  such  nominations  and  upon  approval  appoint 
the  person  so  nominated.1 

The  principal  is  thus  properly  recognized  as  the  respon- 
sible head  of  his  school,  and  is  given  authority  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  teachers  so  that  he  can  be  held  to  account 
for  the  instruction  given. 

In  Meridian,  Miss.,  as  in  so  many  of  the  smaller  cities, 
the  Manual  of  Government  of  the  schools  does  not  define 
the  procedure  of  appointing  teachers.  According  to  the 
superintendent, 

teachers  are  appointed  to  positions  in  the  Meridian  Public  Schools 
by  the  Board  of  Trustees  on  the  advice  of  the  Superintendent  based 
upon  the  application  and  endorsements  of  candidates.2 

The  classification  of  the  other  third  class  cities  under  this 
type  is  based  on  similar  information  obtained  from  school 
documents  or  the  superintendent.  In  any  case  my  state- 
ment of  facts  has  been  confirmed  by  the  superintendent. 

This  type  of  appointment  has  a  distinct  advantage  over 
any  preceding  type,  because  the  superintendent  has  some 
control  over  the  appointment  of  teachers  for  whose  work 
he  is  inevitably  held  more  or  less  responsible.  Further,  in 
the  larger  cities,  the  board  is  required  to  consider  the  super- 

1  Provision  of  City  Charter,  chap.  755,  sec.  400. 
8  In  a  letter  dated  April  28,  1913. 


26    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

intendent's  nominations.  This  type  of  appointment  is 
not  very  different  from  Type  7,  discussed  later,  in  which 
the  superintendent  makes  the  appointments,  subject  to 
approval  by  the  board.  With  the  superintendent  exclu- 
sively making  the  nominations,  they  practically  constitute 
appointments. 

Type  5.  The  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step,  a  com- 
mittee of  the  board  approves  l  the  action,  and  the  board 
makes  the  appointment. 

This  type  is  similar  to  Type  4,  except  that  in  this  case  a 
committee  of  the  board  is  introduced  into  the  procedure, 
which  committee  approves  the  nominations  or  recommenda- 
tions of  the  superintendent.  In  this  type  the  board  still 
appears  to  exercise  officially  the  more  important  function 
of  appointing  the  teachers.  In  this  type,  as  in  the  former, 
boards  are,  in  many  cases,  enjoined  to  consider  the  nomi- 
nations or  recommendations  of  the  superintendent.  In 
such  cases  we  may  legitimately  raise  the  question,  Of 
what  value  is  it  to  have  the  nominations  pass  through  the 
hands  of  a  committee  for  approval?  Especially  should 
this  question  be  considered  in  such  a  case  as  Kansas  City, 
Kan.,  where  the  superintendent  is  held  strictly  to  account 
for  every  nomination  made.  More  cities  belong  to  this 
type  than  to  any  other.    They  are  as  follows: 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

New  York 2 

Cambridge 

Portland,  Ore. 

Newark 

Lowell 

Manchester,  N.  H. 

Washington 

Providence 

Wilmington,  Del. 

New  Orleans 

Bridgeport 

San  Antonio,  Tex. 

Chicago 

Syracuse 

Oklahoma,  Okla. 

Detroit 

Jersey  City 

Des  Moines,  la. 

1  Includes  nominates,  recommends,  examines  into,  reports  on,  and  all  similar 
action  taken  by  a  committee. 

2  The  superintendent  is  chairman  of  the  board  of  superintendents  which  make 
the  nominations. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    27 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Minneapolis 

Paterson 

Fargo,  N.  D.i 

St.  Louis 

Scranton 

Kansas  City,  Kan. 

Los  Angeles 

Richmond 

Butte,  Mont. 

Atlanta 

Cheyenne,  Wyo. 

Louisville 

Salt  Lake,  Utah 

Memphis 

Boise,  Ida. 

Birmingham 

Grand  Rapids 

Omaha 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Spokane 

Obviously  it  will  be  impracticable  as  well  as  unnecessary 
to  analyze  the  rules  in  each  of  the  above  cities.  The  cities 
selected  for  consideration  illustrate  the  type  or  some  special 
feature  to  which  it  seems  desirable  to  call  attention. 

NEWARK 

All  appointments,  promotions  and  transfers  of  teachers  shall  be 
made  by  the  Board  on  recommendation  of  the  Committee  on  In- 
struction and  Educational  Supplies  and  by  them  from  a  list  of  eligi- 
ble candidates  presented  by  the  City  Superintendent,  who  shall  make 
definite  recommendation  from  the  list  for  each  appointment,  pro- 
motion or  transfer.  The  Superintendent's  recommendation  shall  be 
based  upon  experience,  merit,  and  fitness,  to  be  ascertained  so  far 
as  possible  from  the  official  records  in  possession  of  the  Board  of 
Education.2 

The  above  is  one  of  the  most  complete  definitions  of  the 
method  of  making  an  appointment  to  be  found  in  the  rules 
which  have  come  within  our  study.  The  parts  played  by 
the  board,  by  the  committee,  and  by  the  superintendent 
are  clearly  stated.    Responsibility  is  definitely  fixed. 

WASHINGTON 

No  appointment,  promotion,  transfer  or  dismissal  of  any  director, 
supervising  principal,  principal,  head  of  department,  teacher  or  any 

1  There  is  a  committee  on  teachers,  and  it  is  assumed  that  it  participates  in  the 
appointment,  although  the  facts  at  hand  do  not  necessarily  prove  that  fact. 

2  Rules,  sec.  17,  p.  341.  Annual  Report,  1910-11.  Also  Rules,  sec.  19,  p.  301. 
Ibid. 


28    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

other  subordinate  to  the  Superintendent  of  Schools  shall  be  made  by 
the  Board  of  Education,  except  upon  the  written  recommendation 
of  the  Superintendent  of  Schools.1 

The  rules  provide  that 

nominations  made  by  the  Superintendent  for  the  appointment  .  .  . 
of  .  .  .  teachers  .  .  .  shall,  unless  otherwise  ordered,  be  referred 
to  said  Committee,2  which  shall  report  the  same  to  the  Board  of 
Education  with  recommendations  as  to  approval  or  disapproval.3 

The  superintendent  is  exclusively  charged  by  law  with 
the  power  of  recommending  candidates  for  teaching  posi- 
tions, and  the  board  is  prevented  by  the  same  law  from 
selecting  teachers  without  his  recommendation.  In  such 
cases  the  superintendent's  recommendation  practically 
means  an  appointment. 

Just  what  significance  the  committee's  approval  has  with 
the  board  is  largely  a  matter  of  conjecture,  because  such  a 
matter  could  be  determined  only  by  personal  investigation. 
In  view  of  the  law  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  the  legal  func- 
tion of  the  committee  can  be.  The  law  requires  the  board 
to  make  the  appointments,  and  in  so  doing  to  consider 
the  recommendations  of  the  superintendent.  Whether  the 
board  can  by  rule  delegate  either  of  the  above  functions  to 
a  committee  of  its  own  members  is  a  legal  question  which 
it  is  not  within  our  province  to  settle.  At  any  rate,  the 
board  does  not  escape  responsibility  and  accountability 
by  delegating  the  discharge  of  such  functions.  In  the  dele- 
gation of  such  functions  the  danger  is  that  the  board  will 
become  merely  a  rubber  stamp,  and  will  not  supervise  the 
acts  of  the  superintendent  or  of  the  committee  closely 
enough  to  insure  their  best  action. 

1  Laws,  1906,  sec.  2,  no.  254. 

2  I.e.,  committee  on  elementary  and  night  schools;  the  same  provision  is  made 
for  committee  on  the  high  schools  in  the  appointment  of  high  school  teachers. 

8  By-Laws  (not  dated),  art.  vi,  sec.  ii. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    29 

CHICAGO 

The  Superintendent  shall  make  nominations  in  writing  for  all 
vacant  positions  in  the  Education  Department  to  the  Committee  on 
School  Management,  which  shall  report  the  same  to  the  Board  for 
approval.1 

The  function  of  the  committee  seems  to  be  merely  a 
means  of  transmitting  the  nomination  of  the  superintendent 
to  the  board  of  education.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  rule 
does  not  provide  for  any  action,  either  of  approval  or  dis- 
approval, by  the  committee.  According  to  a  statement2 
in  a  communication  from  the  superintendent,  the  committee 
plays  practically  no  part  in  making  appointments. 

JERSEY  CITY 

(c)  Whenever  any  position  becomes  vacant,  or  a  position  has  been 
created,  the  Superintendent  shall,  on  the  request  of  the  Committee 
on  Teachers  and  Salaries,  report  to  this  Committee  the  name  of  the 
person  who  shall  be  first  on  the  list  of  those  eligible  to  appointment 
to  such  position.  .  .  .  This  Committee  shall  recommend  the  person 
so  reported  to  the  Board  for  appointment.  The  Board  shall  there- 
upon elect  such  person  to  the  position  which  has  become  vacant  or 
which  has  been  created.3 

This  is  another  clear  definition  of  procedure.  The  fol- 
lowing facts  should  be  noted:  (a)  the  committee  asks  the 
superintendent  to  nominate  a  candidate;  (b)  the  superin- 
tendent reports  the  name  of  the  first  person  on  the  list; 
(c)  the  committee  is  required  to  recommend  this  person  to 
the  board  for  appointment;  (d)  the  board  is  required  to 
elect  such  a  person.  This  procedure  makes  inevitable  the 
appointment  by  the  board  of  the  person  reported  by  the 
superintendent  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  eligible 
candidates.     Two  matters  are  to  be  especially  observed: 

1  Rides,  1910,  chap,  ii,  art.  ii,  sec.  10. 

2  "The  Board  elects  those  recommended  by  the  Superintendent." 
8  From  Abstract  of  the  Rides,  1913,  art.  liii  (c). 


30    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

(i)  that  the  committee  acts  only  as  an  intermediary  and 
plays  no  vital  function,  and  (2)  the  preparation  of  the 
merit  list  of  candidates  becomes  of  more  significance  than 
the  procedure  in  making  appointments. 

GRAND  RAPIDS 

The  Educational  Committee  shall  have  general  supervision  of  the 
schools  and  together  with  the  superintendent  shall: 

(a)  Examine  candidates  for  teachers.  .  .  . 

(b)  Nominate  teachers  and  recommend  salaries  to  be  paid.1 

The  exceptional  provision  is  that  the  superintendent  and 
the  committee  are  required  to  act  jointly  instead  of  con- 
secutively in  nominating  teachers. 

MANCHESTER,  N.  H. 

When  an  additional  teacher  is  required  .  .  .  the  Superintendent 
shall  nominate  to  the  sub-committee  of  that  school  .  .  .  one  or 
more  persons  qualified  for  the  position  or  positions  to  be  filled,  which 
sub-committee  shall  report  to  the  Board  such  person  or  persons  as  it 
deems  best  fitted  for  the  position  .  .  .  and  the  Board  shall  then 
proceed  to  a  choice  by  ballot  if  more  than  one  candidate  is 
nominated.  .  .  .2 

In  this  city  the  committee  is  a  sub-committee  of  a  school, 
and  not  a  committee  on  appointments  for  all  schools. 
Responsibility  for  the  appointment  of  teachers  in  this  city 
is  distributed  between  the  superintendent  of  schools, 
twenty-one  sub-committees  of  three  members  each  (one 
for  each  school  in  the  city),  and  the  board  of  education. 
The  superintendent  states  that  the  sub-committee  does  not 
always  approve  the  superintendent's  nominees;  it  selects 
candidates  on  its  own  initiative.  This  procedure  is  a  fine 
illustration  of  undesirable  dispersion  of  authority  in  the 
appointment  of  teachers  and  the  concomitant  result  of  no 
one  being  accountable. 

1  Rules,  1913,  sec.  31.  2  Rules,  191 2,  chap,  iii,  sec.  3. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    31 
KANSAS  CITY,  KAN. 

Under  the  duties  of  the  committee  on  teachers  and 
salaries,  the  rules  provide,  among  other  things,  as  follows: 

They  shall  recommend  to  the  Board  for  appointment  all  said 
employees,  provided  that  no  person  shall  be  elected  as  supervisor, 
supervising  principal,  teacher,  census  taker,  teachers'  examiner,  or 
office  assistant  of  the  Educational  department,  except  upon  the 
initiative  and  the  written  recommendation  of  the  Superintendent 
of  Schools  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Teachers  and 
Salaries.1 

Further,  under  duties  of  the  superintendent,  we  find  this 
interesting  provision: 

The  Board  shall  hold  the  Superintendent  directly  responsible  for 
all  nominations  made  by  him,  and  in  the  selection  of  teachers  and 
other  employees,  he  shall  be  guided  strictly  by  the  merits  and  by 
the  By-Laws  and  the  "Rules  and  Regulations"  of  the  Board,  and 
shall  hold  himself  absolutely  free  and  independent  from  all  influences 
to  the  contrary.2 

The  rules  make  it  the  duty  of  the  superintendent  to 
initiate  the  process  of  appointing  teachers  by  making  written 
recommendations  of  candidates;  no  doubt  many  boards  try 
to  hold  the  superintendent  responsible  for  his  nominations, 
but  few  have  defined  that  responsibility  in  such  specific 
and  unmistakable  terms  as  has  this  city. 

Type  6.  The  superintendent  takes  the  initial  step,  a  com- 
mittee of  the  board  makes  ,the  appointment,  subject  to 
approval  by  the  board. 

This  type  differs  from  the  preceding  type  in  this  impor- 
tant respect:  the  committee  and  not  the  board  selects 
the  teachers.  The  centre  of  gravity  in  making  appoint- 
ments has  passed  from  the  board  to  a  committee  of  its 
members. 

1  Rules,  1908-9,  sec.  xi  (2).  2  Ibid.,  sec.  vii  (8). 


32    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 
The  cities  are  as  follows: 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Philadelphia 

Worcester 

Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Milwaukee 

St.  Paul 
Oakland 

PHILADELPHIA 

Under  duties  of  committees  the  rules  provide : 

Whenever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  elect  a  supervising  prin- 
cipal, principal  or  assistant  teacher  in  any  of  the  elementary  schools 
other  than  those  named  in  By-Laws  III,  Section  8,1  kindergartner, 
teacher  of  sewing  or  cooking,  or  other  official  named  in  By-Laws  III, 
Sections  5  &  7,2  the  Committee  shall  make  its  choice  from  the  proper 
eligible  list  (see  Rule  XXV,  Eligibility  of  Election),  or  from  the 
nominees  of  the  Superintendent  of  Schools,  and  shall  report  the  same 
to  the  Board  for  its  approval.3 

The  committee  selects  the  teachers  and  merely  reports 
the  same  to  the  board. 

The  above  rule  also  clearly  gives  the  committee  the  option 
between  choosing  candidates  from  the  proper  eligible  list  or 
from  the  nominees  of  the  superintendent.  But  to  confirm 
the  practice  in  this,  the  following  question  was  addressed 
to  the  superintendent:  "May  the  committee  disregard  the 
superintendent's  nomination?"    The  answer  was  "Yes." 

Under  duties  of  the  superintendent  the  rules  provide: 

He  shall  keep  in  his  office  eligible  lists  of  certified  teachers  and 
principals  arranged  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  order  of  rank  or 
standing;  and  no  person  shall  be  appointed  to  any  educational  posi- 
tion, other  than  those  specified  in  the  school  law,  whose  name  does 

1  By-Law  iii  covers  the  duties  of  the  superintendent  of  schools.  Sec.  8  pro- 
vides that  the  superintendent  "shall  nominate  to  the  Committee  on  Special 
Schools"  suitable  persons  for  teachers  in  the  trade  schools  and  evening  schools 
and  of  so-called  special  subjects. 

2  Sec.  5  refers  to  the  superintendent's  nomination  of  associate  and  district 
superintendents,  directors  of  special  branches,  et  al.  Sec.  7  defines  the  superin- 
tendent's duty  in  nominating  elementary  school  teachers. 

3  Rules,  191 1,  xv,  sec.  2. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    33 

not  appear  among  the  three  highest  names  upon  the  proper  eligible 

list.1 

The  new  school  law2  referred  to  does  not  require  that 
principals  or  teachers  in  either  the  normal  or  high  schools 
be  selected  from  eligible  lists. 

The  provision  for  the  appointment  of  high  school  teach- 
ers needs  some  preliminary  explanation.  There  are  two 
separate  committees  in  charge  of  the  high  schools:  the 
committee  on  normal  school,  high  school  for  girls  and  clas- 
sifications of  teachers,  and  the  committee  on  the  central 
high  school,  and  manual  training  high  schools  for  boys. 
They  act  jointly  in  selecting  teachers,  as  the  following 
rule  indicates: 

The  Committee  [on  Normal  School,  etc.]  shall  act  in  conjunction 
with  the  Committee  on  Central  High  School  and  Manual  Training 
High  Schools  for  Boys  in  all  the  following  named  matters,  and  such 
action  as  may  be  taken  shall  be  the  joint  action  of  the  two  Commit- 
tees, subject  to  approval  by  the  Board,  viz.,  (a)  the  election  of  prin- 
cipals, members  of  the  teaching  force  .  .  .  ,  etc.3 

The  duty  of  the  superintendent  in  the  appointment  of 
high  school  teachers  is  denned  as  follows: 

He  shall  inform  the  Committee  of  his  views  in  relation  to  the 
qualifications  of  the  persons  who  may  apply  to  the  respective  Com- 
mittees for  election  as  teachers  in  said  schools,  and  shall  indicate  the 
choice  that,  in  his  judgment,  should  be  made  by  the  Committee  or 
Committees.  He  shall  be  invited  to  all  meetings  of  all  such  Com- 
mittees for  the  purpose  of  affording  advice  and  counsel.4 

From  the  above  it  is  clear  that  the  board  has  gone  only 
as  far  as  the  law  required  it  to  go  in  giving  the  superin- 
tendent authority  in  the  appointment  of  teachers.  His 
real  authority  is  limited  even  in  the  nomination  of  elemen- 
tary school  teachers,  because  the  committee  may  ignore 
his   nominations.     Clearly   the   official   authority  of   the 

1  By-Law  Hi,  sec.  14.  *  New  School  Code,  191 1,  sec.  2229. 

»  By-Laws  xix,  sec.  5.  *  By-Law  iii,  sec.  16. 


34    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

superintendent  in  the  appointment  of  high  school  teachers 
is  small.  His  influence  in  either  case  will  depend  largely 
on  his  personal  force  and  tact,  and  on  the  character  of  the 
committees  with  which  he  has  to  deal.  If  the  committees 
are  willing  to  take  his  advice  and  counsel,  he  may  partici- 
pate in  making  the  appointments.  If,  however,  for  any 
reason,  the  committee  choose  to  ignore  the  superintendent, 
they  are  protected  in  their  action  by  the  rules  of  the  board. 
Instead  of  the  rules  protecting  the  superintendent  in  the 
discharge  of  an  important  professional  function,  they  de- 
fend the  independence  of  the  committee.  Further,  such 
dispersion  of  authority  for  the  appointment  of  teachers 
among  several  different  committees  of  the  board  makes  the 
maintenance  of  satisfactory  professional  standards  extremely 
difficult,  and  also  makes  the  fixing  of  the  responsibility  for 
appointments  almost,  if  not  quite,  impossible. 

MILWAUKEE 

The  employment,  classification,  transfer  and  promotion  of  teach- 
ers, shall  be  done  by  the  Committee  [on  Examination  and  Promo- 
tion] upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Superintendent,  subject  to 
approval  by  the  Board,  special  consideration  being  given  to  merit 
and  length  of  service.1 

The  rules  also  provide  that  the  appointments  shall  be 
"on  a  strict  basis  of  eligibility  and  fitness." 

The  examination  of  teachers  shall  be  conducted  by  the  Superin- 
tendent of  Schools  and  his  assistants,  and  the  results  presented  to  the 
Committee  for  their  action. 

WORCESTER 

The  Committee  on  Teachers  shall  appoint  teachers  in  the  primary 
and  grammar  grades  in  the  day  schools,  and  make  such  transfers  as 
it  may  deem  advisable,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  School  Com- 
mittee. .  .  .2 

The  Committee  on  High  Schools  shall  have  general  charge  of  the 

1  Rules,  1909,  art.  xiv,  sec.  3.    Also  in  Laws  of  1907,  chap.  459,  sec.  9. 

2  Rules,  chap,  iv,  sec.  2. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    35 

day  High  Schools.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  this  Committee  to  recom- 
mend for  appointment  all  teachers  in  these  schools.  All  transfers  of 
teachers  in  these  schools  shall  be  made  by  this  Committee,  subject  to 
the  approval  of  the  School  Committee.  All  certificates  of  qualifica- 
tion in  these  schools  shall  be  given  by  this  Committee.1 

Under  duties  of  the  superintendent  the  rules  provide  that 

He  shall  keep  a  list  of  applicants  for  schools  and  a  record  of  such 
facts  as  may  be  known  to  him  respecting  their  character,  experience 
and  qualifications,  and  shall  recommend  to  the  proper  committees 
teachers  for  nomination.2 

According  to  a  statement  made  by  a  member  of  the 
Worcester  school  committee,  in  a  public  address, 

The  City  employs  between  seven  and  eight  hundred  teachers, 
most  of  whom  teach  in  the  elementary  schools.  In  sheer  self-defence 
the  Committee  has  had  to  adopt  rules  governing  the  appointment 
of  this  more  numerous  class.  Positions  in  the  elementary  schools  are 
now  upon  a  strictly  civil  service  basis.  .  .  .  But  a  very  important 
department  remains  to  be  accounted  for,  —  the  high  schools.  The 
rules  of  the  School  Committee  give  to  the  sub-committees  on  high 
schools  practical  control  of  all  matters  pertaining  to  those  schools. 
.  .  .  Now,  in  the  selection  of  teachers  the  Committee  on  High  Schools 
has  an  absolutely  free  hand.  It  has  not  even  made  rules  for  its  own 
governance.  If  it  chose  to  recommend  an  inmate  of  a  home  for  the 
feeble  minded  it  would  have  a  perfect  right  to  do  so.3 

ST.  PAUL 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Committee  on  schools  to  appoint  all 
teachers  in  the  public  schools,  and  to  fill  all  vacancies,  except  as 
heretofore  mentioned,4  giving  consideration  to  the  recommendations 
of  the  Superintendents  of  Schools,  and  to  report  the  same  to  the 
Board  for  confirmation  at  the  first  regular  meeting  thereafter.5 

1  Rules,  chap,  iv,  sec.  12. 

2  Ibid.,  chap,  ii,  sec.  4. 

3  Sixth  Annual  Report,  1911,  the  Public  Education  Association  of  Worcester, 
pp.  14-15. 

*  This  refers  to  the  authority  given  to  the  superintendent  to  fill  temporarily 
any  vacancies.     Sec.  62. 

6  By-Laws  of  the  board  of  school  inspectors,  in  Biennial  Report  for  1908-10, 

p.  302. 


36    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

OAKLAND 

The  Committee  on  Teachers,  from  the  lists  compiled  by  the  Su- 
perintendent, shall  select  the  teachers  who  are  in  the  judgment  of  said 
Committee,  best  qualified  to  fill  positions  in  the  Oakland  School 
Department.1 

It  is  made  the  duty  of  the  City  Superintendent  of  Schools  to  gather 
full  and  complete  information,  so  far  as  possible,  in  reference  to  each 
and  every  applicant  for  a  position  in  the  Department.  ...  He  shall 
make  his  recommendations  to  the  Committee  on  Teachers.  .  .  .2 

Boards  of  education  in  cities  in  Class  B  have  found  it 
desirable  or  necessary  to  delegate  in  part  the  discharge  of 
the  responsibility  for  the  appointment  of  teachers.  In  some 
cities  in  Class  B  the  board  has  voluntarily,  or  as  required 
by  law,  delegated  to  the  superintendent  of  schools  the 
authority  to  nominate  candidates.  It  has  been  provided, 
in  some  cases,  that  a  committee  shall  approve  the  nomina- 
tions of  the  superintendent  before  the  board  makes  the 
appointments;  in  other  cities  the  committee  appoints  the 
teachers  on  the  superintendent's  nomination,  subject  to 
approval  by  the  board.  By  far  the  most  common  method 
of  appointment  found  in  this  investigation  is  one  in  which 
the  superintendent  nominates  candidates,  the  committee  on 
teachers  approves,  and  the  board  appoints  the  candidates. 

In  most  cases  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  beneficial  or  essen- 
tial function  the  committee  performs  by  approving  the 
nominations  of  the  superintendent.  For  example,  what  is 
the  importance  of  the  committee's  action,  (a)  when  the 
board  is  required  by  law  to  consider  the  nominations  of  the 
superintendent3;  (b)  when  the  committee  neither  approves 
nor  disapproves  the  nominations,  but  acts  only  as  an  in- 
termediary for  transmitting  the  nominations  of  the  super- 
intendent to  the  board4;   (c)  when  the  board  is  required  by 

1  Circular  on  rules  governing  the  selection  of  teachers,  1909,  sec.  8. 
*  Ibid.,  sec.  7.  ■  For  example,  see  Washington,  p.  55. 

4  For  example,  see  Chicago,  p.  57. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    37 

the  rules  or  by  law  to  appoint  the  first  candidate  on  the 
appropriate  eligible  list1;  (d)  when  the  board  is  not  per- 
mitted to  select  teachers  unless  they  are  nominated  or 
recommended  by  the  superintendent?  2 

The  appointment  of  teachers  by  a  committee  of  the  board 
cannot  be  justified  according  to  any  reasonably  effective 
principles  of  successful  school  administration.  The  division 
of  authority  and  the  accompanying  dispersion  of  responsi- 
bility which  it  entails  make  strict  accountability  impossi- 
ble.  This  is  well  illustrated  by  the  situation  in  Philadelphia 

already  described. 

CLASS  A 

The  superintendent  makes  the  appointment,  and  a  com- 
mittee of  the  board  and  the  board  confirm  it,  or  the  board  alone 
approves  it,  or  the  appointment  is  effective  without  confirmation. 

The  chief  characteristic  of  the  methods  of  appointment 
in  the  cities  in  Class  A  is  that  the  superintendent  makes 
the  appointments,  subject  to  varying  degrees  of  approval 
by  the  board,  or  by  its  committee,  or  by  both.  The  centre 
of  gravity  in  making  the  appointments  has  been  transferred 
from  the  board  to  the  superintendent.  This  transfer  of 
authority  for  appointment  has  been  so  complete  in  the  case 
of  Type  9  that  the  board  has  no  positive  authority  in  ap- 
pointing teachers;  it  can  only  reject  appointments  made 
by  the  superintendent.  The  board's  authority  is  negative, 
not  positive.  Following  is  a  classification  of  cities  in  Class  A 
arranged  according  to  Types  7,  8,  and  9. 

Type  7.     The  superintendent  makes  the  appointment  and 
the  board  approves  it. 

Of  the  seventy-three  cities  covered  in  this  study,  Boston 
and  Toledo  are  the  only  ones  belonging  to  this  type. 

1  For  example,  see  Jersey  City,  p.  58. 

■  For  example,  see  Pittsburgh,  p.  50,  and  Kansas  City,  Kan.,  p.  60. 


38    TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Under  the  definition  of  the  duties  of  the  superintendent, 
the  Boston  rules  provide: 

He  shall,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Board,  appoint,  reappoint, 
and  remove  all  members  of  the  supervising  staff  and  teachers: 
provided  that  in  the  original  appointment  of  subordinate  teachers, 
he  shall  consult  the  principal  of  the  school  or  district  and  the  assist- 
ant Superintendent  in  charge  thereof,  or  the  director  of  the  special 
department,  if  the  appointment  is  in  that  department.1 

It  is  to  be  pointed  out  that  in  these  two  cities  no  commit- 
tee action  intervenes  between  appointment  by  the  superin- 
tendent and  approval  by  the  board;  also  that  in  Boston 
the  subordinate  administrative  officers  are  consulted  in 
making  original  appointments  to  service.  The  superin- 
tendent is  responsible  for  every  appointment  made,  be- 
cause he  makes  them. 

Type  8.  The  superintendent  makes  the  appointment,  a 
committee  of  the  board  approves  it,  and  the  board  con- 
firms it. 

This  type  differs  from  the  preceding  one  in  that  a  com- 
mittee approves  the  appointments  of  the  superintendent 
before  they  go  to  the  board  for  confirmation.  This  method 
of  appointment  is  found  in  the  following  cities: 


First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Burlington 

Cincinnati 

Dayton 

Four  of  these  cities  are  in  Ohio.  Obviously  this  uni- 
formity in  methods  of  appointment  is  due  to  the  provisions 
of  the  state  law,2  defining  the  duties  of  the  superintend- 
ent of  schools.  In  view  of  this  agreement  in  methods  of 
appointment,  the  rules  of  only  one  city  in  Ohio  will  be 
presented. 


1  Rules,  191 2,  chap,  vi,  sec.  105. 

2  School  Laws,  191 2,  chap,  iii,  sec.  7703. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    39 

COLUMBUS 

Under  duties  of  the  superintendent  the  rules  provide: 

He  shall  appoint,  subject  to  the  approval  and  confirmation  of  the 
Board,  all  teachers,  and  may  for  cause  suspend  any  person  thus  ap- 
pointed until  the  Board  or  a  Committee  of  the  Board  considers  such 
suspension,  but  no  one  shall  be  dismissed  by  the  Board  except  as 
provided  by  Statute.1  The  Board  may,  by  a  three-fourths  vote  of 
its  full  membership,  reappoint  any  teacher  whom  the  Superintendent 
refuses  to  appoint.2 

Under  duties  of  committees  on  teachers  the  rules  provide: 

This  Committee  shall  inquire  carefully  into  the  character  and 
qualifications  of  each  person  appointed  by  the  Superintendent  for 
a  position  as  teacher,  and  must  have  a  list  of  appointments  at  least 
two  weeks  before  their  confirmation.3 

Type  9.    The  superintendent  makes  the  appointment,  sub- 
ject  only  to  rejection  by  the  board. 

This  type  differs  from  all  others  in  the  fact  that  the 
board  has  no  positive  authority  in  the  appointment  of 
teachers.  It  can  only  exercise  the  power  of  rejecting  ap- 
pointments made  by  the  superintendent.  New  Haven  and 
Indianapolis  use  this  method. 

NEW  HAVEN 

Under  duties  of  superintendent  the  rules  in  New  Haven 
provide: 

He  shall  appoint  from  those  eligible  under  the  rules  of  the  Board, 
all  principals,  assistants,  and  teachers  necessary  to  fill  positions 
authorized  by  the  Board. 

(b)  He  shall  report  at  each  meeting  of  the  Board  all  appointments 
and  dismissals  made  by  him  since  the  previous  meetings. 

1  I.e.,  dismissal  can  be  only  on  basis  of  written  charges,  and  after  the  teacher 
has  been  given  an  opportunity  for  defence  before  the  board  or  its  committee,  and 
only  on  a  majority  vote  of  the  full  membership  of  the  board.  —  Laws  of  1912, 
sec.  7701. 

2  Rides,  1913,  sec.  213.  3  Rides,  1912,  sec.  96. 


40    THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

(c)  Any  appointment  by  the  Superintendent  may  be  rejected  by 
a  vote  of  five  members  of  the  Board,  but  not  later  than  the  time  of 
the  next  regular  meeting  after  such  appointment. 

(J)  In  order  to  acquire  full  knowledge  affecting  .  .  .  appoint- 
ments, it  is  the  wish  of  the  Board  that  the  Superintendent  shall  give 
to  each  member  of  the  Board  one  week's  notice  in  writing  before  such 
appointment  .  .  .  shall  become  effectual.1 

INDIANAPOLIS 

In  Indianapolis,  under  duties  of  the  superintendent,  the 
rules  provide: 

He  shall  make  all  appointments  of  .  .  .  teachers  and  report  the 
same  to  the  Board  at  the  next  regular  meeting,  and  from  the  date  of 
such  appointment  as  announced  the  same  shall  be  in  full  force  sub- 
ject to  the  disapproval  of  the  Board  by  a  four-fifths  vote  of  all  its 
members:  such  vote  to  be  taken  not  later  than  the  regular  meeting 
next  succeeding  the  regular  meeting  at  which  said  appointments  shall 
have  been  reported.2 

The  feature  of  the  appointment  in  these  two  cities  is  the 
amount  of  authority  given  the  superintendent.  Appoint- 
ments are  effective  without  the  approval  of  the  board. 
The  board  may  reject  the  appointments  at  its  first  meeting 
after  they  were  made,  but  only  by  five  out  of  seven  votes 
in  New  Haven  and  four  out  of  five  votes  in  Indianapolis. 
Thus  the  board  has  sufficient  supervisory  authority  to 
protect  itself  and  to  see  that  the  superintendent  does  his 
duty.  On  the  other  hand,  the  superintendent  has  authority 
in  the  appointment  of  teachers  commensurate  with  his 
responsibility  for  the  character  of  the  instruction  in  the 
schools. 

Denver,  Col.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  and  San  Francisco,  Cal., 
have  not  been  classified  under  any  of  the  above  types  for 
the  following  reasons:  The  information  furnished  by  the 
superintendent  in  Denver  was  incomplete,  and  it  came  so 


1  Rules,  1910,  sec.  41. 

2  Rules,  191 1,  art.  x,  sec.  14. 


PRESENT  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING  TEACHERS    41 

late  that  there  was  not  time  to  supplement  it.  The  rules 
do  not  define  the  part  played  by  the  superintendent  in 
making  appointments;  they  do  define  the  parts  played  by 
the  board  and  by  its  committee. 

Buffalo  has  no  board  of  education.  Appointments  are 
made  by  the  superintendent  of  schools  from  merit  lists. 

San  Francisco  also  has  an  exceptional  arrangement. 
The  superintendent  of  schools  is  a  regular  member  of  the 
board  of  education  and  is  elected  by  the  people.  The 
other  members  of  the  board  are  appointed  by  the  mayor 
and  are  paid  to  give  all  their  time  to  the  service  of  education. 
The  board  elects  the  teachers.  The  rules  do  not  define  any 
particular  function  which  the  superintendent  performs  in 
the  appointment  of  teachers  other  than  as  a  member  of 
the  board. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  METHODS  OF  APPOINTING 

TEACHERS 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  presented  the  detailed  facts 
concerning  each  of  the  three  classes  and  each  of  the  nine 
types  of  appointment  and  classified  seventy  cities  accord- 
ingly. Each  classification  was  based  on  rules  similar  to 
those  quoted,  or  on  information  confirmed  or  furnished  by 
the  superintendent.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to 
consider  the  significance  of  these  classes  and  types  of  ap- 
pointment from  a  larger  point  of  view.  For  this  purpose 
we  shall  consider  some  summary  tables  and  graphs  which 
will  show  (i)  the  relative  number  of  cities  under  each  class 
and  type  of  appointment.  Following  this  we  shall  con- 
sider (2)  the  significance  of  our  arrangement  of  classes  and 
types  of  appointment,  and  (3)  what  each  appointive  agency 
officially  does  in  making  appointments. 

The  Relative  Number  of  Cities  under  Each  Class 
and  Type  of  Appointment 

The  following  summary  table  shows  the  total  number  of 
cities  in  each  class  of  appointment  (C,  B,  and  A),  the  total 
number  of  cities  by  types  (1  to  9  inclusive),  and  the  dis- 
tribution of  those  cities  according  to  our  classification  of 
first,  second,  and  third  class  cities. 


42 


SIGNIFICANCE 

OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT    43 

Classes  of 
Appointment 

Total  No.  of 
Cities  by 
Classes 

Types 

Total  No.  of 

Cities  by 

Types 

No.  of  Cities  by  Classes  (Size) 

First 

Second 

Third 

I 

I 

O 

I 

O 

c 

5 

2 

3 

O 

I 

2 

3 

1 

O 

O 

I 

5 

O 

2 

3 

4 

12 

2 

4 

6 

B 

56 

5 

3* 

9 

17 

12 

6 

6 

2 

3 

1 

56 

13 

24 

19 

7 

2 

I 

1 

0 

A 

9 

8 

5 

2 

2 

1 

9 

2 

O 

2 

0 

9 

3 

5 

1 

Summary  of  Totals 

C 5  o 

B 56 

A j9 

Totals 701 


13 
_3 
16 


2 
24 
_5 
3i 


3 
19 

1 

23 


The  three  graphs  at  the  left  on  the  following  page  show 
the  distribution,  according  to  classes  and  types  of  appoint- 
ment, of  sixteen  first  class  cities,  of  thirty-one  second  class 
cities,  and  of  twenty-three  third  class  cities. 

The  large  graph  at  the  right  is  a  summary  of  the  other 
three  graphs  on  the  same  page,  and  shows  the  relative 
number  of  cities  classified  under  each  class  and  type  of 
appointment. 

Each  graph  shows  a  striking  preference  on  the  part 
of  all  classes  (sizes)  of  cities  for  the  Class  B  method 
of  appointment,  and  particularly  for  Type  5  in  that 
class. 

1  Buffalo,  San  Francisco,  and  Denver  are  not  included  in  these  or  subsequent 
graphs  or  tables  in  this  chapter. 


44     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


"lasses 

C 

B 

A 

Classes 
Types 

c 

B 

A 

rypes    123456789 

123456789 

10 

9 

40 

8 

39 

7 

38 

6 

37 

5 

36 

4 

35 

3 

34 

2 

33 

1 

32 

3i 

17 

30 

16 

29 

IS 

28 

14 

27 

13 

26 

12 

25 

11 

24 

10 

23 

9 

22 

8 

21 

7 

20 

6 

19 

5 

18 

4 

17 

3 

16 
IS 

2 

.III 

14 

13 

12 

12 

11 

11 

10 

10 

9 

9 

8 

8 

7 

7 

6 

6 

5 

S 

4 

4 

3 

3 

2 

2 

1 

~i  n 

1 

_L1 

SIGNIFICANCE  OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT     45 

The  graphs  show: 

(1)  That  there  are  no  first  class  cities  which  belong  under 
Class  C;  i.e.,  the  superintendent  participates  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  teachers  in  all  first  class  cities. 

(2)  That  with  one  exception  there  are  no  third  class 
cities  which  belong  under  Class  A;  i.e.,  the  superintendent 
does  not  appoint  teachers  in  third  class  cities,  he  nominates 
candidates. 

(3)  That,  with  the  above  exceptions,  each  type  of  ap- 
pointment is  found  in  practically  every  class  of  city;  i.e.,  no 
one  type  of  appointment  predominates,  for  example,  in 
large  cities  or  in  small  cities. 

(4)  That  the  most  common  type  of  appointment  in 
cities  of  each  size  is  one  in  which  the  superintendent  nomi- 
nates the  candidate,  the  committee  on  teachers  approves 
the  nomination,  and  the  board  appoints  the  candidate 
named. 


The   Significance  of  the  Arrangement  of  Classes 
and  Types  of  Appointment 

The  following  diagram  presents  a  general  view  of  the 
various  methods  of  appointing  teachers.  Classes  C,  B, 
and  A  show,  from  left  to  right,  increasing  authority  of  the 
superintendent.  The  types  under  each  class  are  arranged 
from  left  to  right  according  to  the  decreasing  authority  of 
the  board  of  education.  In  the  type  at  the  left  under 
Class  C  the  board  appoints  the  teacher;  in  the  next  type 
the  board  shares  the  process  of  making  appointments  with 
a  committee  and  the  superintendent;  and  in  the  type  at 
the  right  the  board  approves  the  appointments  of  the  com- 
mittee. As  far  as  the  board  is  concerned,  the  arrangement 
of  types  in  Class  B  is  identical  with  Class  C,  and  the  same 
general  arrangement  prevails  in  Class  A. 


46     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Class  C 


s'                              Five  Cities                             \. 

Superintendent  does  not  officially  participate 

\ 

No  committee  action 

Committee  recommends 

Committee  appoints 

Board  appoints 

Board  appoints 

Board  approves 

Type  i 
i  City 

Type  2 
3  Cities 

Class  B 

Type  3 
1  City 

yS                        Fifty-six  Cities                          x. 

\ 

Superintendent  nominates  candidates 

y 

No  committee  action 

Committee  recommends 

Committee  appoints 

Board  appoints 

Board  appoints 

Board  approves 

Type  4 
12  Cities 

Type  5 
38  Cities 

Class  A 

Type  6 
6  Cities 

y/                           Nine  Cities                              n^ 

Superintendent  appoints  teachers 

S 

\ 

No  committee  action 

Committee  recommends 

No  committee  action 

Board  confirms 

Board  confirms 

Board  may  reject 

Type  7 
2  Cities 

Type  8 
5  Cities 

Type  9 
2  Cities 

SIGNIFICANCE  OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT     47 

The  following  diagram  shows  at  a  glance  the  general 
arrangement  of  the  preceding  detailed  diagram.  The  inside 
line  bounds  the  board's  responsibility.  The  outside  solid  line 
bounds  the  board's  accountability.  The  dotted  line  bounds 
the  accountability  of  the  superintendent  of  schools. 


Class  C 

Class  B                                Class  A 

1   r^* - r 1 

"^Sa                     Superintendent's 

•                ^^V>                       accountability                  • 

Board's 

accountability              ^<-                    ( 

1                                                      >,>     ,                           . 

1                                                                1                 ^^« 

Types  1.2,3 


Types  4,5,6 


Types    7,8,9 


In  general  the  preceding  detailed  diagram  is  so  arranged 
that  Classes  C,  B,  and  A  show  a  progressively  increasing 
amount  of  official  authority  exercised  by  the  superintendent 
in  the  appointment  of  teachers.  In  the  five  cities  in  Class  C 
the  superintendents  do  not  officially  participate  in  making 
appointments,  because  neither  the  boards  nor  the  law  dele- 
gates to  them  any  authority  for  so  doing.  In  the  fifty-six 
cities  in  Class  B  the  superintendents  have  the  authority  to 
nominate  or  recommend  candidates,  but  in  most  cases  the 
boards  retain  by  far  the  larger  responsibility  by  officially 
making  the  appointments.  In  the  nine  cities  in  Class  A  the 
superintendents  have  the  authority  for  making  the  appoint- 
ments, the  boards  retaining  only  a  supervisory  capacity  over 
them. 

On  the  other  hand,  considered  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  board,  the  diagram  shows  from  left  to  right  a  progres- 
sively decreasing  authority  exercised  by  the  board  in  the 
discharge  of  its  responsibility.  This  is  the  converse  of  the 
arrangement  to  show  the  authority  of  the  superintendent 


48      TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

which  has  just  been  described.  In  the  cities  in  Class  C  the 
boards,  voluntarily  or  as  required  by  law,  delegate  no  au- 
thority for  making  appointments,  whereas  in  Class  A  they 
delegate  complete  authority  for  so  doing.  In  general  the 
two  considerations  are  complementary  to  each  other:  as  a 
board  increasingly  delegates  or  is  required  to  delegate  its 
authority  to  the  superintendent  its  own  active  authority 
necessarily  decreases. 

(i)  Classes  of  appointment  are  arranged  according  to  their 
historical  evolution 

Although  the  exact  place  of  each  class  of  appointment 
has  not  been  determined  by  a  detailed  historical  study, 
nevertheless  in  general  the  arrangement  of  Classes  C,  B, 
and  A  is  according  to  the  historical  development,  as  shown 
in  chapter  i.  This  general  development  shows  clearly  the 
working  of  the  evolutionary  principle  of  differentiation 
and  specialization  of  functions.  Whereas  in  earlier  times 
the  board  of  education  felt  qualified  and  competent  to  deal 
directly  with  all  matters  connected  with  school  work,  now 
most  boards  see  the  need  of  a  proper  delegation  of  most 
functions  for  which  they  are  responsible  to  agencies  better 
qualified  than  the  board  to  deal  with  them. 

The  boards  in  cities  under  Class  C  have  not  delegated  any 
of  their  authority  to  the  superintendent,  whereas  all  boards 
in  cities  in  Classes  B  and  A  have  voluntarily,  or  as  required 
by  law,  delegated  more  or  less  of  their  authority  to  the  super- 
intendent. This  delegation  of  functions  has  been  brought 
about,  on  the  one  hand,  by  a  tremendous  increase  in  the 
functions  for  the  discharge  of  which  the  board  is  primarily 
responsible,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  by  an  insistent  demand 
for  more  efficient  education  and  more  efficient  methods  of 
supplying  it.  In  general  the  three  classes  of  appointment 
represent  different  stages  of  progress  in  the  historical  evo- 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT     49 

lution  of  a  system  of  appointing  teachers.  Those  types 
at  the  left  represent  earlier  stages  in  that  evolution,  and 
those  at  the  right  the  advanced  or  progressive  types. 

If  the  classes  are  arranged  in  correct  historical  sequence, 
then  the  future  development  of  the  methods  of  appoint- 
ment will  be  from  the  lower  (Types  1-3)  toward  the  higher 
types  (Types  7-9).  The  view  which  one  should  take  of  the 
summary  graph  on  page  44  is  that  in  early  times  all  cities 
belonged  under  Type  1,  that  the  development  has  been 
toward  the  right  of  the  graph,  that  a  great  majority  of  the 
cities  have  reached  Types  4  and  5,  that  several  pioneer 
cities  have  gone  far  beyond  those  types,  that  cities  under 
Types  1,2,  and  3  are  in  a  stage  of  evolution  long  passed  by 
most  cities,  and  that  in  due  time  the  mode  in  this  distribu- 
tion will  be  found  under  Class  A  instead  of  under  Class  B. 

(2)  Difference  between  the  most  extreme  types 

As  one  views  the  preceding  table  on  page  46,  the 
difference  between  any  two  contiguous  types  of  appoint- 
ment is  not  striking.  But  if  one  takes  a  larger  view,  and 
considers  the  difference  between  the  types  in  Class  C  and 
those  in  Class  A,  the  differences  are  more  marked.  In 
Class  C  the  superintendent  does  not  officially  participate 
in  appointing  teachers,  while  in  Class  A  the  superintendent 
makes  the  appointment  subject  to  varying  degrees  of  super- 
vision by  the  board  and  its  committee  on  teachers. 

The  most  striking  difference  may  be  seen  by  contrasting 
Type  1  with  Type  9.  The  appointment  of  teachers  in  the 
one  city  in  Type  1  is  made  by  the  board  without  the  partici- 
pation of  either  a  committee  of  the  board  or  the  superin- 
tendent. In  other  words,  the  board  exercises  its  authority 
for  making  appointments  directly  and  does  not  delegate 
any  portion  of  that  authority  to  any  subordinate  agency 
whatsoever.    In  the  two  cities  in  Type  9  the  board  does 


SO     TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

not  exercise  any  positive  authority  in  making  appointments; 
it  may  only  reject  the  appointments  made  by  the  super- 
intendent. In  these  cities  the  board  has  been  deprived  by 
law  of  all  authority  for  appointing  teachers.  The  board 
still  retains  its  responsibility  to  the  public  for  the  character 
of  the  appointments  made,  because  the  superintendent  does 
not  act  as  an  independent  officer,  but  as  an  agent  of  the 
board  which  appointed  him.  The  board  is  protected  in  its 
responsibility  for  the  appointment  of  teachers  by  having 
veto  power  over  the  superintendent  and  by  holding  him 
accountable  for  his  appointments. 

Whether  a  city  is  in  Type  i  or  in  Type  9,  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  board  to  the  public  is  the  same.  But  radically 
different  conceptions  of  the  proper  methods  of  discharging 
that  responsibility  are  shown.  In  one  case  the  board  itself 
seeks  to  discharge  its  responsibilities  directly;  in  the  other 
case,  in  the  discharge  of  a  professional  function,  the  board 
has  been  succeeded  by  a  properly  qualified  executive  officer. 
The  centre  of  gravity  in  the  appointment  of  teachers  has 
passed  in  some  cities,  and  is  passing  in  others,  from  the 
board  of  education  to  the  superintendent  of  schools. 

(3)  Transition  from  one  type  to  another  not  difficult 

In  several  instances  the  various  types  in  the  different 
classes  of  appointment  do  not  materially  differ.  Hence, 
transition  from  one  type  to  another  is  not  a  difficult  matter. 
For  example,  the  procedure  in  making  appointments  in 
Type  5,  Class  B,  differs  largely  in  name  and  not  in  fact 
from  Type  7  in  Class  A.  This  similarity  is  brought  about 
by  the  rules  and  regulations  governing  the  procedure  in 
making  appointments,  all  of  which  increase  the  authority 
and  responsibility  of  the  superintendent,  and  correspond- 
ingly decrease  the  direct  activity  of  the  board.  The  fol- 
lowing rules  will  illustrate  this. 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT     51 

For  example,  in  Pittsburgh  the  rules  provide  that 

No  teacher  shall  receive  an  appointment  in  the  schools  of  Pitts- 
burgh who  is  not  recommended  to  the  Board  by  the  Superintendent 
of  Schools.1 

Further,  in  Atlanta  the  rules  provide  that 

All  .  .  .  teachers  .  .  .  shall  before  their  election  to  any  position 
in  the  schools,  be  recommended  by  the  Superintendent,  .  .  .  sub- 
ject to  their  confirmation  or  rejection  by  the  Board.  If  any  recom- 
mendation is  rejected  by  the  Board  the  Superintendent  shall,  in  like 
manner  as  above  provided,  make  other  recommendations  to  take  the 
place  of  any  one  so  rejected,  until  one  is  made  that  shall  meet  the 
approval  of  the  Board.2 

Also  in  Kansas  City,  Kan.,  the  rules  provide  that  the  com- 
mittee shall  recommend  employees  to  the  board,  and  con- 
cludes with  the  significant  provision  that 

No  person  shall  be  elected  ...  as  teacher  .  .  .  except  upon  the 
initiative  and  the  written  recommendation  of  the  Superintendent  of 
Schools.  .  .  .3 

The  above  illustrations  show  that  the  rules  enjoin  the 
board  to  accept  or  reject  the  nominations  of  the  superin- 
tendent and  prevent  the  board  from  selecting  teachers  on 
its  own  initiative.  In  all  such  cases  the  nomination  of  the 
superintendent  is  virtually  an  appointment.  The  step 
necessary  for  such  a  city  under  Type  5  to  take  to  make  it 
possible  to  classify  itself  under  Type  7  is  a  short  one  indeed. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  historically  the  trend  is  in  that 
direction,  we  may  confidently  expect  that  some  of  the  cities 
now  classified  in  Type  5  will  be  transferred  eventually  to 
the  Type  7  or  Type  8  groups.  The  resulting  increase  in 
the  authority  of  the  superintendent  in  the  appointment 
of  teachers  as  shown  in  Types  7  to  9  is  entirely  in  accord 
with  the  present  tendency  toward  the  increased  responsibil- 

1  Rules  (no  date),  art.  vii,  sec.  14. 

a  Rules,  in  Annual  Report,  191 2,  sec.  27,  p.  88. 

3  Rules,  1908-9,  sec.  11. 


52      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

ity  and  enlargement  of  powers  of  the  city  superintendent 
of  schools.1 

(4)  Conclusions 

The  preceding  exposition  has  made  conspicuous  the  fol- 
lowing facts: 

1.  Historically  the  tendency  is  toward  the  types  of 
appointment  in  Class  A. 

2.  The  transition  from  one  type  of  appointment  to 
another  is  not  difficult,  because  the  difference  in  many 
cases  is  one  of  name  rather  than  of  fact. 

3.  According  to  the  evolutionary  principle  of  differentia- 
tion and  specialization  of  function,  the  centre  of  gravity  in 
the  appointment  of  teachers  is  passing  from  the  board  of 
education  to  the  superintendent  of  schools. 

4.  This  increased  responsibility  and  authority  of  the 
superintendent  in  the  appointment  of  teachers  is  but  a 
part  of  the  enlargement  and  extension  generally  of  his 
responsibilities  and  powers. 

5.  The  decrease  in  active  participation  by  the  board  in 
the  appointment  of  teachers  does  not  mean  a  decrease  in 
its  primary  responsibility  for  the  appointment  of  teachers; 
it  merely  means  the  transferring  of  the  discharge  of  that 
professional  function  from  the  board  to  the  board's  execu- 
tive officer  and  professional  adviser. 

What  Each  Appointive  Agency  Officially  Does  in 
Making  Appointments 

Thus  far  we  have  given  attention  largely  to  explaining 
the  significance  of  types  of  appointment  and  to  consider- 
ing the  number  of  cities  using  each  type.  In  the  course  of 
our  analysis  it  has  been  shown  that  there  are  three  agencies 

1  Chamberlain,  The  Growth  of  Responsibility  and  Enlargement  of  Power  of  the 
City  School  Superintendent.    University  of  California  Press,  Berkeley. 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT     53 

which  participate  in  the  appointment  of  teachers:  the 
board  of  education,  a  committee  of  the  board,  and  the 
superintendent  of  schools.  We  shall  now  turn  our  atten- 
tion to  these  appointive  agencies  to  consider  the  part 
officially  played  by  each.  The  most  striking  fact  shown 
in  the  tabulation  of  the  methods  of  appointing  teachers  is 
that  the  authority  of  each  of  these  participants  in  the 
process  of  appointment  ranges  from  complete  authority  in 
some  cities  to  no  authority  in  others.  Concerning  each 
agency  we  shall  answer  this  question:  What  are  the  dif- 
ferent ways  in  which  each  agency  officially  participates  in 
the  appointment  of  teachers  in  the  different  cities? 

(1)  The  board  of  education 

In  most  cities  the  board  of  education  is  the  source  of  all 
authority  over  the  appointment  of  teachers.  In  some 
cities  the  laws  place  the  responsibility  for  the  appointment 
of  teachers  on  the  superintendent.  But  in  such  cases  the 
board  still  exercises  some  supervision  over  appointments. 
In  other  cities  the  boards  adopt  their  own  rules  governing 
the  appointment  of  teachers.  The  natural  result  is  a  great 
variety  of  methods  of  appointment.  In  the  different  cities 
the  board's  participation  ranges  from  complete  and  exclu- 
sive authority  in  Nashville  to  no  positive  authority  in  New 
Haven  and  Indianapolis.  In  Nashville  the  board  has  dele- 
gated no  authority.  Like  the  prudential  committee  of 
early  times  which  the  board  has  succeeded,  it  nominates 
and  elects  its  teachers  without  the  official  participation  of 
either  a  committee  of  the  board  or  the  superintendent. 
This  is  the  oldest  historical  type  of  appointment  which 
comes  within  our  study. 

In  fifty-three  of  the  seventy  cities  under  consideration 
(over  75  per  cent)  the  board,  either  voluntarily  or  as  re- 
quired by  law,  has  delegated  to  the  superintendent  or  to  a 


54     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

committee  of  its  own  members  the  authority  to  initiate  the 
process  of  making  an  appointment. 

In  fourteen  of  the  seventy  cities  (or  20  per  cent)  the 
authority  for  making  the  appointments  is  in  the  hands  of 
others,  and  the  board  exercises  a  supervisory  function  over 
those  appointments. 

In  New  Haven  and  Indianapolis  the  boards  do  not  exer- 
cise any  positive  authority  in  making  appointments.  The 
law  gives  that  authority  to  the  superintendent  and  gives 
the  board  veto  power  over  his  appointments.  Hence,  the 
board  has  no  positive,  but  only  negative  authority.  This 
is  the  most  extreme  case  of  relieving  the  board  from  the 
exercise  of  this  important  function.  Nevertheless,  the 
increased  responsibility  now  being  everywhere  conferred 
on  the  superintendent  and  the  marked  tendency  to  delegate 
all  executive  functions  to  officers,  both  indicate  that  this 
may  ultimately  become  a  much  more  common  type  of 
appointment. 

The  following  table  summarizes  the  different  ways  in 
which  the  board  participates  in  the  appointment  of  teachers 
and  the  number  of  cities  in  each  case. 

1.  The  board  appoints  on  the  recommendation  of  others     .    .  53  cities 

2.  The  board  approves  the  appointments  made  by  others   .    .  14     " 

3.  The  board,  exclusive  of  others,  appoints 1  city 

4.  The  board  does  not  participate 2  cities 

Total 70  cities 

(2)  The  committee  on  teachers 

The  committee  on  teachers  of  the  board  of  education  is 
a  creation  of  the  board.1  No  statute  provides  for  such  a 
committee.  The  board  is  exclusively  responsible  for  its 
creation  and  for  the  rules  under  which  it  does  its  work. 
The  committee  is  made  up  of  members  of  the  board  and  is 

1  Bard,  The  City  School  District,  p.  63. 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT     55 

responsible  to  the  board.  It  has  no  inherent  authority:  all 
its  acts  are  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  board. 

The  committee  form  of  organization  is  an  undesirable 
inheritance.  It  has  been  retained  so  long  because  boards 
have  recognized  the  necessity  of  delegating  to  others  the 
discharge  of  certain  functions  for  which  they  are  responsi- 
ble; the  present  need  is  that  boards  should  delegate  the 
discharge  of  those  functions  to  officers  and  not  to  committees 
of  their  own  members. 

The  committee  can  never  be  an  effective  means  of  secur- 
ing well  qualified  teachers.  It  cannot,  as  has  been  already 
pointed  out,  be  held  responsible  for  its  selections.  It  affords 
abundant  opportunity  for  the  exercising  of  unprincipled 
means  in  the  selection  of  teachers.  It  is  easily  influenced 
by  the  appeal  of  home-bred  girls,  of  self-seekers,  and  of 
other  agencies  that  have  little  real  interest  in  the  education 
of  children. 

The  variety  of  activities  performed  by  the  committee 
in  the  appointment  of  teachers  shows  that  there  is  less 
general  agreement  among  boards  of  education  on  the  part 
which  a  committee  may  properly  play  in  the  appointment 
of  teachers  than  on  the  proper  functions  of  either  the  board 
of  education  or  the  superintendent.  The  diversity  of  con- 
ceptions held  by  boards  of  education  considering  how  best 
to  appoint  teachers  is  well  illustrated  by  the  variety  of  ways 
in  which  the  committee  participates  in  such  appointments. 

In  seven  of  the  seventy  cities  the  committee  appoints 
teachers  subject  to  the  board's  approval.  This  is  the  most 
authority  which  the  boards  confer  on  the  committee  on 
teachers.  This  practically  amounts  to  complete  authority, 
because  the  board's  approval  is  usually  merely  a  formal 
matter.  The  committee  exercises  this  authority  because 
the  board  has  by  formal  rules  delegated  such  authority  to 
the  committee. 


56      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

In  three  cities  the  committee  initiates  the  nomination 
or  recommendation  leading  to  an  appointment.  In  such 
cases,  unfortunately,  the  superintendent  takes  no  part  in 
the  appointment.  In  forty-three  cities  the  committee 
approves  the  nominations  of  the  superintendent,  who 
originates  the  process  leading  to  an  appointment.  The 
committee  acts  largely  as  an  intermediary  between  the 
superintendent  and  the  board.  This  provision  for  the  com- 
mittee's approval  of  the  superintendent's  nominations 
serves  no  necessary  or  beneficial  purpose.  In  many  cities 
the  board  is  enjoined  by  law  to  consider  the  nominations 
of  the  superintendent.  Of  what  use  is  it  to  have  a  com- 
mittee act  on  them  before  the  board  considers  them? 
With  a  suitable  merit  list,  and  with  a  board  of  reason- 
able size,  this  act  of  the  committee  has  become  a  use- 
less inherited  appendage  which  could  advantageously  be 
severed. 

In  seventeen  cities  a  committee  does  not  participate  in 
making  appointments:  the  appointments  are  made  by  the 
board  and  the  superintendent  directly.  In  eight  of  these 
seventeen  cities  there  are  no  committees.  In  the  nine  other 
cities  there  are  committees  of  the  board,  but  they  take  no 
action  in  making  appointments.  The  fact  that  seventeen 
cities  can  appoint  teachers  without  the  aid  of  standing 
committees  is  sufficient  proof  that  committees  are  not 
indispensable. 

The  following  table  summarizes  the  different  ways  in 
which  the  committee  on  teachers  participates  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  teachers,  and  the  number  of  cities  in  each 
case. 

i.  The  committee  appoints  subject  to  approval  of  board     .    .  7  cities 

2.  The  committee  originally  nominates  candidates 3     " 

3.  The  committee  approves  nominations  of  the  superintendent  43     " 

4.  The  committee  does  not  participate 17    " 

Total      70  cities 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT     57 

(3)  The  superintendent  of  schools 

The  superintendent  is  an  executive  and  administrative 
officer  selected  by  the  board  to  perform  professional  serv- 
ices. One  would  naturally  expect  to  find  him  playing  a 
large  part  in  the  performance  of  such  a  technical  and  pro- 
fessional function  as  the  appointment  of  teachers.  But 
the  extent  of  the  authority  officially  exercised  by  the  super- 
intendent varies  as  much  as  does  the  authority  of  the  board 
or  of  the  committee.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  city 
superintendent  is  a  school  officer  found  in  every  city 
in  the  United  States,  nevertheless  many  boards  of  edu- 
cation still  retain  features  of  the  old  forms  of  doing  busi- 
ness which  were  in  operation  before  a  superintendent  was 
known. 

In  two  cities  the  superintendent  exercises  complete 
authority  in  making  appointments.  There  is  no  action  by 
a  committee.  The  board  has  by  law  been  shorn  of  all  power 
in  making  appointments.  The  board  has  veto  power  over 
the  appointments  of  the  superintendent.  In  seven  cities 
the  superintendent  appoints  teachers,  and  his  appoint- 
ments must  be  approved  by  the  board  before  they  are 
effective.  In  fifty-six  cities  the  superintendent  nominates 
candidates,  and  his  nominations  are  approved  by  the  com- 
mittee, and  appointments  are  made  by  the  board. 

In  only  five  cities  the  superintendent  has  no  official  part 
to  play  in  making  appointments. 

The  following  table  summarizes  the  different  ways  in 
which  the  superintendent  participates  in  the  appointment 
of  teachers,  and  the  number  of  cities  in  each  case. 

1.  The  superintendent  appoints  subject  only  to  veto    ....  2  cities 

2.  The  superintendent  appoints  subject  to  approval     ....  7 

3.  The  superintendent  nominates 5^ 

4.  The  superintendent  does  not  participate 5 

Total      70  cities 


58     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

(4)  Summary  and  conclusions 

Concerning  the  appointive  agencies,  the  following  sum- 
mary shows  in  how  many  cities  each  agency  officially 
(a)  does  not  participate  in  making  appointments,  (6)  origi- 
nates the  appointments,  (c)  approves  the  nominations  or 
appointments  of  others,  and  (d)  makes  the  appointments. 

(a)  Does  not  participate 

Board 2  cities 

Committee     17     " 

Superintendent 5     " 

(b)  Originates  the  appointments 

Board 1  city 

Committee     4  cities 

Superintendent 65     " 

(c)  Approves  the  nominations  or  appointments  of  others 

Board 14  cities 

Committee     46     " 

Superintendent o  city 

(d)  Makes  the  appointments 

Board 54  cities 

Committee     7     " 

Superintendent 9    " 

The  following  facts  may  be  deduced  from  the  preceding 
analysis: 

1.  The  board  is  the  agency  which  is  seldom  left  out  of  the 
procedure  in  making  appointments;  it  rarely  originates  an 
appointment;  it  sometimes  approves  the  appointment  of 
others;  and  finally  the  board  is  the  agency  which  by  far 
most  often  officially  makes  the  appointments. 

2.  The  committee  of  the  board  is  the  agency  most  often 
omitted  from  the  procedure  of  making  appointments;  it 
seldom  originates  an  appointment;  it  occasionally  makes 
appointments;  and  finally  by  far  the  most  frequent  duty 
of  the  committee  is  the  approval  of  nominations  or  appoint- 
ments made  by  the  superintendent. 

3.  The  superintendent  is  occasionally  left  out  of  the 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  METHODS  OF  APPOINTMENT     59 

procedure  in  making  appointments;  he  frequently  makes 
appointments;  he  never  approves  the  nominations  or  ap- 
pointments of  others;  the  superintendent  is  the  agent  who 
by  far  most  frequently  originates  the  process  which  leads 
to  an  appointment. 


CHAPTER  IV 

ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  AND   METHODS  OF 
DETERMINING  THEM  IN  SELECTED   CITIES 

Those  who  appoint  teachers  must  consider  the  qualifications 
of  the  candidates.  Therefore,  the  eligibility  qualifications 
of  teachers  logically  form  an  integral  part  of  this  study. 
However,  to  work  out  the  details  of  the  eligibility  qualifica- 
tions for  appointment  in  each  of  the  seventy-three  cities 
covered  in  this  study  is  an  elaborate  and  important  study 
in  itself,  and  cannot  be  undertaken  in  this  monograph. 

Conditions  Met  with  in  Making  a  Comprehensive 

Study 

i.  The  eligibility  qualifications  for  appointment  in  some 
cities  are  undefined  and  hence  are  not  stated  in  school 
documents.  In  Worcester  the  committee  on  high  schools 
of  the  board  of  education  has  general  charge  of  the  high 
schools.  The  following  is  the  only  reference  to  the  qualifi- 
cations of  high  school  teachers  in  the  rules  of  the  school 
committee.  "All  certificates  of  qualification  for  teachers  in 
these  schools  shall  be  given  by  this  Committee.' ' l  Obviously 
the  only  source  of  information  concerning  the  eligibility 
qualifications  for  high  school  teachers  in  Worcester  is  the 
committee  on  high  schools. 

2.  The  eligibility  qualifications  in  some  cities  are  partly 
or  largely  contained  in  the  state  laws.  In  Newark,  candi- 
dates for  any  certificate  from  the  city  board  of  examiners 

1  Rules,  1908,  chap,  iv,  sec.  12. 
60 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  6l 

shall  be  required  to  hold  an  appropriate  license  in  full  force  and  effect, 
issued  by  the  State  Board  of  Examiners,  and  in  addition  thereto,  a 
certificate  of  qualification  for  appointment  under  the  rules  and  regu- 
lations of  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  city  of  Newark.1 

Hence,  in  a  detailed  study  of  the  eligibility  qualifications 
in  such  cities,  the  state  laws  must  be  examined. 

3.  Again,  the  eligibility  qualifications  are  classified  in 
such  different  ways  in  different  cities  that  the  facts  can 
scarcely  be  reduced  to  a  comparable  basis.  In  Paterson 
the  rules  provide  that  the  board  of  examiners  shall  issue 
twenty-two  distinct  licenses  to  various  classes  of  teachers 
and  principals  in  the  public  schools.  For  each  license  there 
are  special  qualifications.  In  any  one  of  many  other  cities 
the  same  classes  of  teachers  would  be  certificated  by  one- 
fourth  that  number  of  licenses. 

4.  Likewise,  when  clearly  and  definitely  stated,  some- 
times the  eligibility  qualifications  are  so  limited  and  modi- 
fied by  qualifying  clauses,  or  there  are  so  many  alternatives 
offered,  that  no  significant  generalizations  can  be  made, 
even  on  the  basis  of  a  complete  and  correct  tabulation  of 
the  facts.  As  an  example  of  alternatives,  note  the  follow- 
ing: in  New  York  City,  to  be  eligible  to  take  the  teachers' 
examinations  to  qualify  as  a  teacher  in  grades  1  to  6  in- 
clusive, one  of  the  several  qualifications  reads: 

Five  years'  successful  experience  in  teaching,  together  with  the 
passing  of  an  academic  examination  set  by  the  City  Superintendent 
of  Schools  for  admission  to  training  schools,  or  by  the  State  Com- 
missioner of  Education  for  a  State  Life  Certificate,  given  since  1892, 
or  by  the  College  Entrance  Examination  Board  of  the  Middle  States 
and  Maryland  for  admission  to  college,  or  the  passing  of  other  aca- 
demic examination  approved  by  the  Board  of  Examiners.2 

Further,  the  tabulation  of  the  eligibility  qualifications 
for  elementary  school  teachers  in  the  first  class  and  second 

1  Annual  Report,  1910-11,  xi,  p.  336. 

2  Manual  of  the  Board  of  Education,  191 1,  sec.  71  (E),  p.  151. 


62      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

class  cities,  as  stated  in  their  printed  documents,  does  not 
show  a  single  item  of  regular  school  education  that  is  uni- 
formly specified  as  a  requirement.  One  might  expect  that 
all  candidates  who  qualify  to  become  teachers  in  the  ele- 
mentary schools  would  have  to  be  high  school  graduates, 
but  such  is  not  the  case.  For  example,  how  much  school 
training  must  a  teacher  have  had  to  meet  the  above  re- 
quirement in  New  York  City? 

5.  Finally,  and  possibly  most  significant  of  all,  is  the 
fact  that  school  documents  give  little  or  no  information 
concerning  the  present  practice  under  the  eligibility  re- 
quirements. To  be  of  most  significance,  a  detailed  study 
should  indicate,  at  least  in  general,  what  proportion  of  the 
teachers  qualify  under  each  possible  eligibility  requirement. 
Then  one  would  know  something  of  the  character  of  the 
teachers  who  are  being  appointed.  For  example,  in  Cin- 
cinnati there  are  two  separate  lists  of  candidates  eligible 
for  appointment  in  the  elementary  schools.1  On  the  first 
list  there  are  two  classes  of  candidates:  (a)  those  who  are 
college  graduates  and  have  taken  in  college  at  least  twenty- 
four  college  credits  in  education,  and  (b)  those  who  are  col- 
lege graduates  without  the  work  in  education,  but  who 
instead  have  had  two  years'  experience  in  teaching.  On 
the  second  list  are  (a)  those  who  are  high  school  graduates 
and  who  in  addition  are  graduates  of  a  two  year  normal 
school  course,  and  (b)  those  who  are  high  school  graduates 
with  two  years'  experience  in  teaching. 

Merely  to  present  the  above  facts  is  to  tell  the  truth,  but 
the  truth  in  such  a  case  is  likely  to  be  misleading.  It  is 
necessary  to  explain  that  candidates  are  never  taken  from 
the  second  list  until  the  first  list  is  exhausted,  and  there  are 
usually  enough  candidates  on  the  first  list  to  fill  the  vacan- 
cies and  new  positions.    From  this  it  becomes  clear  that 

1  Circular  of  Information,  191 2. 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  63 

the  teachers  who  are  appointed  to  positions  in  the  elementary 
schools  in  Cincinnati  are  usually  college  graduates  who  have 
had  nearly  one  complete  year  of  work  in  education  or  two 
years'  teaching  experience.  To  state  the  above  eligibility 
requirements  without  making  the  above  explanation  is 
misleading;  to  make  such  explanations  for  each  city  would 
occupy  too  large  a  part  of  this  monograph,  even  if  the  time 
to  make  them  were  at  our  disposal. 

In  the  foregoing  there  is  no  implied  criticism  of  cities 
because  they  do  not  state  their  eligibility  requirements  in 
uniform  terms.  The  single  purpose  of  the  above  explana- 
tion is  to  show  what  the  conditions  are.  To  generalize 
without  working  out  the  detailed  requirements  is  unsci- 
entific; to  attempt  to  state  the  detailed  requirements  in  this 
monograph  would  lead  us  too  far  from  our  subject  and 
could  bring  no  desirable  results.  Therefore,  instead  of  trying 
to  make  a  comparative  study  of  the  eligibility  qualifications 
in  the  seventy-three  cities,  it  will  be  more  advantageous  for 
our  purpose  to  study  intensively  the  eligibility  require- 
ments in  a  few  city  school  systems  and  discuss  these  as 
types. 

Study  of  Eligibility  Requirements  in  Selected  Cities 

The  more  important  eligibility  requirements  are  usually 
stated  in  terms  of  amount  of  academic  education,  profes- 
sional training,  and  teaching  experience.  These  require- 
ments are  fixed  by  state  law  or  by  the  rules  of  the  board  of 
education.  In  some  cities  age  requirements  are  fixed.  In 
various  cities  candidates  are  required  to  furnish  certificates 
of  moral  character,  of  health,  of  birth,  of  vaccination,  and 
of  normal  school  or  college  graduation.  We  are  chiefly 
concerned,  however,  with  the  academic  and  professional 
requirements  in  selected  cities,  and  with  the  methods  used 


64     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

in  these  cities  to  determine  whether  candidates  possess  the 
prescribed  qualifications. 

To  study  eligibility  qualifications  and  the  methods  of 
determining  them  requires  that  we  consider:  (i)  eligibility 
requirements  for  teachers  in  (a)  elementary  schools  and 
(b)  high  schools;  (2)  the  examinations  for  testing  candidates 
who  want  to  teach  in  (a)  elementary  schools  and  (b)  high 
schools;  (3)  the  board  of  examiners  (or  other  agency)  that 
conducts  the  examinations;  and  (4)  the  merit  list  of  eligible 
candidates. 

BOSTON 
I.   ELIGIBILITY  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  TEACHERS 

(a)  Elementary  schools 

The  eligibility  requirements  for  teachers  in  the  elementary 
schools  in  Boston  are: 

Evidence  of  two  years'  successful  experience  in  teaching  and  gov- 
erning regular  graded  day  schools,  or  graduation  from  the  Boston 
Normal  School.1 

In  addition  candidates  must 

present  satisfactory  evidence  of  possessing  good  character,  health, 
and  scholarship,  and  satisfactory  and  documentary  evidence  of  the 
date  of  birth.  .  .  .2 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  no  amount  of  schooling 
is  prescribed  for  elementary  school  candidates. 

(b)  High  schools 

The  eligibility  requirements  are: 

A  diploma  from  a  college  or  university  approved  by  the  board  of 
superintendents,  or  from  an  institution  of  as  high  a  grade:  evidence 
of  three  years'  successful  experience  in  teaching  and  governing  regular 
graded  day  schools.3 

1  Rules,  191 2,  chap,  vii,  sec.  138,  viii. 

8  Ibid.,  sec.  138.  *  Ibid.,  sec.  138,  iv. 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  65 

2.   EXAMINATIONS  FOR  TESTING  THE  FITNESS  OF 
CANDIDATES 

(a)  Elementary  schools 

A  candidate  for  the  elementary  school  certificate  .  .  .  will  be 
examined  in  the  following  subjects.  The  examination  may  include 
the  method  of  teaching  the  same: 

1.  English  language  and  grammar. 

2.  English  and  American  literature. 

3.  Essay. 

4.  Psychology  and  principles  of  education. 

5.  Drawing. 

6.  Theory  of  music;  singing. 

7.  English  and  American  history  with  civil  government. 

8.  Arithmetic  or  algebra  or  plane  geometry. 

9.  Physical   and   political    geography,   or    botany,   or    zoology,   or 

physiology. 
10.  Latin,  or  German,  or  French,  or  physics,  or  chemistry.1 

The  graduates  of  the  Boston  Normal  School  are  entitled 
to  receive  certificates  of  qualification  without  examinations. 

(b)  High  schools 
Elementary  Examination2 

A  candidate  for  the  high  school  certificate  will  be  examined  in  each 
of  the  following  subjects: 

1.  English  and  American  literature.  2.  One  foreign  language 
(Latin,  French,  or  German).  3.  Psychology  and  principles  of  educa- 
tion.   4.  Essay.     5.  General  history. 

Advanced  Examination 

A  candidate  for  the  high  school  certificate  will  also  be  examined  in 
one  major  and  two  minor  subjects  that  he  shall  elect  from  any  one  of 
the  following  groups.    Both  major  and  minor  subjects  must  be  selected 

1  Circular  of  Information,  no.  32,  1913,  p.  21. 

2  Circular  of  Information,  no.  32,  1913,  pp.  18-19.  A  recent  regulation  states 
that  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  in  Education  will  be  accepted  in  lieu  of  two 
years'  experience  in  the  requirements  for  high  school  certificates,  provided 
certain  requirements  as  to  academic  and  professional  education,  including 
practice  teaching,  are  fulfilled  by  the  holder  of  the  degree. 


66     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

from  the  same  group.  The  major  subject  must  be  chosen  from  those 
marked  i;  one  minor  subject  must  be  chosen  from  those  marked  2; 
the  second  minor  subject  must  be  chosen  from  those  marked  3. 
Both  an  elementary  and  advanced  examination  in  the  same  subject 
may  be  taken,  but  a  subject  taken  as  a  major  may  not  also  be  taken 
as  a  minor. 


Group  I 

Major  Subject 

First  Minor  Subject 

Second  Minor  Subject 

I. 

English  and  Ameri- 
can Literature. 

2.  English  History. 
Group  II 

3. 

Composition  and 
Rhetoric. 

I. 

Latin  Language  and 
Literature. 

2.  Greek. 
2.  German. 
2.  French. 

Group  III 

3- 

Ancient  History. 

I. 
I. 
I. 
I. 

French  Language  and 

Literature. 
German      Language 

and  Literature. 
Spanish      Language 

and  Literature. 
Italian  Language  and 

Literature. 

2.  German. 
2.  Latin. 
2.  French. 
2.  Spanish. 
2.  Italian. 

Group  IV 

3- 

Mediaeval  and  Mod- 
ern European  His- 
tory. 

I. 

American  History. 

2.  English  History. 
Group  V 

3- 
3. 

Ancient  History. 

Mediaeval  and  Mod- 
ern European  His- 
tory. 

I. 

I. 

Bookkeeping  and 
Commercial  Arith- 
metic. 

Phonography  and 
Typewriting. 

2.  Economics. 

2.  Bookkeeping  and 
Commercial  Arith- 
metic. 

2.  Phonography  and 
Typewriting. 

Group  VI 

3. 

Commercial  Law  and 
Commercial  Geog- 
raphy. 

I. 

Trigonometry  and 
Analytics. 

2.  Algebra. 

3- 

Geometry. 

ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS 


67 


Major  Subject 

i.  Physics. 
1.  Chemistry. 


Group  VII 

First  Minor  Subject 

2.  Physiology. 

2.  Physical  Geography.    3.  Physics. 

2.  Algebra. 


Second  Minor  Subject 
3.  Chemistry. 


1.  Botany. 
1.  Zoology. 


Group  VIII 

2.  Botany. 
2.  Zoology. 
2.  Physiology. 


3.  Chemistry. 


1.  Household  Science 
and  Arts. 


Group  IX 

2.  Physiology. 
2.  Botany. 
2.  Zoology. 


3.  Chemistry. 


1.  Free-hand  Drawing. 


Group  X 

2.  History  of  Art.  3.  Composition  and 

2.  Mechanical  Drawing.  Design. 

2.  Manual  Training. 


1.  Manual  Training. 


Group  XI 

2.  Mechanical  Drawing.  3.  Composition  and 
2.  Free-hand  Drawing.  Design. 


Gr0«/>  XII 

1.  Musical  Composition.   2.  History  of  Music.        3.  Biography  of  Musical 

Composers. 

1.  Economics.  2.  Industrial  History.      3.  Commercial  Law  and 

Commercial  Geog- 
raphy. 


3.   THE  BOARD   OF  EXAMINERS 

In  Boston  the  board  of  examiners  is  the  board  of  super- 
intendents, consisting  of  the  superintendent  of  schools  and 
the  six  assistant  superintendents.  The  assistant  superin- 
tendents are  elected  by  the  school  committee  for  a  term 


68      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

of  six  years.    In  the  discharge  of  their  duties  they  are  the 
personal  representatives  of  the  superintendent. 

The  examinations  are  designed  to  test  the  training,  knowledge, 
and  aptness  for  teaching  of  the  candidates.  In  general,  the  marking 
for  day  school  and  supervisory  certificates  is  on  a  scale  of  one  thou- 
sand points,  of  which  six  hundred  points  may  be  obtained  by  ex- 
amination, and  four  hundred  points  may  be  allowed  for  amount  and 
quality  of  previous  experience  in  teaching  and  governing  schools.1 

4.   THE  MERIT  LIST 

Candidates  eligible  for  permanent  positions  in  either  the 
elementary  or  high  schools  are  placed  on  the  appropriate 
eligible  lists,  and  an  appointment  must  be  made  from  among 
the  first  three  names  on  the  proper  list.2 

The  noteworthy  and  commendable  features  of  the  Boston 
system  are:  a  system  of  examinations  which  includes  aca- 
demic and  professional  subjects  to  test  general  education  as 
well  as  the  special  preparation  for  teaching  in  either  the 
elementary  or  the  secondary  schools;  a  board  of  examiners 
consisting  of  the  highest  professional  officers  in  the  school 
system;  and  a  merit  list  of  candidates  for  both  the  elemen- 
tary and  the  secondary  schools. 

ST.  LOUIS 

1,  2.    Eligibility  Requirements  for  Teachers  and  the 
Examinations  for  Testing  the  Fitness  of  Candidates 

(a)  Elementary  schools 

Graduates  of  the  St.  Louis  Teachers  College,  and  those 
who  have  been  assigned  as  apprentice  teachers  and  have 
done  successful  work,  may  be  placed  on  the  eligible  list 
without  written  examinations.    Also  the  superintendent  is 

1  Circular  of  Information,  no.  32,  1913,  p.  6. 
J  Rules,  191 2,  chap,  vii,  sec.  144,  1. 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  69 

authorized  by  the  rules  to  list  for  employment,  without 
written  examinations,  persons  whom  he  deems  qualified 
for  service,  and  who  have  recently  been  graduated  from  the 
Missouri  State  University,  Washington  University,  or  from 
other  colleges  of  national  standing,  or  the  state  normal 
schools.1 

Applicants  who  are  not  graduates  of  State  Normal  Schools,  col- 
leges, or  universities  of  national  standing,  will  be  required  to  take  a 
written  examination  in  the  following  subjects:  Reading,  Grammar, 
Composition  and  Penmanship,  Arithmetic,  Geography,  and  History 
of  the  United  States.  But  no  person  is  entitled  to  take  this  examina- 
tion who  has  not  had  experience  in  public  school  work  for  at  least 
two  years  immediately  preceding  the  time  of  such  examination.  The 
personal  qualification  of  the  candidate,  her  education,  her  profes- 
sional experience,  and  her  general  information  shall  be  considered  in 
an  oral  examination.2 

(b)  High  schools 

For  admission  to  the  examination 

the  presentation  of  a  diploma  of  some  first-class  college  or  Normal 
School  is  required.3  .  .  .  The  branches  required  in  the  written  ex- 
aminations are  Algebra,  Geometry,  Latin,  English  Literature,  History 
and  Grammar  of  the  English  Language,  General  History,  Natural 
Science,  and  Theory  and  History  of  Education.  An  oral  examination 
is  added  to  afford  an  opportunity  of  becoming  acquainted  with  the 
personality,  general  information,  and  general  ability  of  the  applicant. 
The  Superintendent  may  allow  the  substitution  of  equivalent  studies 
for  some  of  those  in  the  list.4 

3.   THE  BOARD  OF  EXAMINERS 

The  city  charter 5  provides  that  the  "examination  for  ap- 
pointment shall  be  conducted  by  the  Superintendent  under 
regulations  to  be  made  by  the  Board." 

1  Abstract  from  the  Rides,  1910,  regulation  iv,  sec.  i  and  ii,  pp.  35-36- 

2  Ibid.,  sec.  iii,  p.  37. 

3  Ibid.,  regulation  ii,  sec.  ii,  p.  26. 

4  Ibid.,  sec.  iii,  pp.  26-27. 

6  City  Charter,  1897,  sec.  7. 


70     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

The  rules  l  of  the  board  of  education  provide: 

The  Superintendent  of  Instruction,  the  Assistant  Superintendents, 
the  principals  of  the  high  schools,  and  such  supervisors,  principals, 
and  teachers  as  the  Superintendent  may  select  shall  constitute  a 
Committee  of  Examiners. 

4.   THE  MERIT  LIST 

There  is  a  merit  list  of  elementary  and  high  school  can- 
didates. The  board  announces  in  the  rules  its  intention 
"to  call  in  rotation  on  the  persons  placed  on  the  eligible 
list,  when  their  services  are  needed,"  but  "it  does  not  enter 
into  any  obligation  to  employ  any  applicant  on  the  list."  2 
The  board  "reserves  the  right  to  discontinue  at  its  discre- 
tion, any  or  all  the  names  on  such  eligible  list."  3 

The  noteworthy  and  commendable  features  of  the  St. 
Louis  system  are:  the  recognition  which  is  given  to  certif- 
icates of  graduation  from  reputable  institutions;  the  exclu- 
sive authority  conferred  on  the  superintendent  to  conduct 
the  examinations  and  to  select  such  of  the  supervisory 
officers  and  teachers  as  he  may  desire  to  assist;  the  merit 
list  of  candidates  for  elementary  and  high  schools. 

PORTLAND,  ME. 
I.  ELIGIBILITY  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  TEACHERS 

(a)  Elementary  schools 

Teachers  in  the  grammar  and  primary  schools  of  the  city  shall  be 
graduates  of  an  accredited  normal  school  or  training  school;  or  hold 
a  teachers  state  certificate  authorizing  the  holder  to  teach  in  the 
elementary  schools  of  Maine  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  five  years.4 

(b)  High  schools 

Teachers  in  the  high  schools  shall  be  graduates  of  reputable  col- 
leges, universities,  or  scientific  schools,  or  hold  a  teacher's  state  cer- 

1  Rule  44  (2),  191 1,  p.  69.  2  Rules,  1910,  regulation  iv,  sec.  1,  p.  36. 

8  Ibid.,  sec.  5,  p.  37.  4  Rules,  191 2,  chap,  vi,  sec.  614. 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  71 

tificate  authorizing  the  holder  to  teach  for  life  in  the  public  schools 
of  Maine.1 


2,  3.     EXAMINATIONS   FOR  TESTING   THE  FITNESS   OF   CAN- 
DIDATES   GIVEN   BY   THE    SUPERINTENDENT 

The  law 2  provides  as  follows: 

II.  On  satisfactory  evidence  that  a  candidate  possesses  a  good 
moral  character  and  a  temper  and  disposition  suitable  for  an  instructor 
of  youth,  he  shall  examine  him  in  reading,  spelling,  English  grammar, 
geography,  history,  arithmetic,  civil  government,  bookkeeping,  and 
physiology,  with  special  reference  to  the  effects  of  alcoholic  drinks, 
stimulants  and  narcotics  upon  the  human  system;  and  the  elements 
of  the  natural  sciences,  especially  as  applied  to  agriculture,  and  such 
other  branches  as  the  superintending  school  committee  desire  to  in- 
troduce into  public  schools,  and  particularly  into  the  school  for  which 
he  is  examined;  also  as  to  his  capacity  for  the  government  thereof. 

III.  He  shall  give  to  each  candidate  found  competent,  a  certificate 
that  he  is  qualified  to  govern  said  school  and  instruct  in  the  branches 
above  named,  and  such  other  branches  as  may  be  necessary  to  be 
taught  therein,  or  he  may  render  valid  by  endorsement  any  graded 
certificates  issued  to  teachers  by  normal  school  principals.  No  cer- 
tificates shall  be  granted  any  person  to  teach  in  the  public  schools 
of  the  state  who  has  not  passed  a  satisfactory  examination  in  physi- 
ology and  hygiene,  with  special  reference  to  the  effects  of  alcoholic 
drinks,  stimulants  and  narcotics  upon  the  human  system. 

4.   THE  MERIT  LIST 

There  are  no  provisions  in  the  rules  for  a  merit  list  of 
candidates,  although  the  superintendent  states  that  in 
practice  there  is  such  a  list. 

The  features  of  the  Portland  system  to  be  noted  are:  the 
specifically  stated  requirements  for  teachers  in  the  elemen- 
tary and  high  schools;  the  provision  in  the  law  that  the 
superintendent  shall  examine  candidates  for  teaching  posi- 
tions; and  the  acceptance  in  the  city  of  certificates  issued 
by  the  state. 

1  Rules,  1912,  chap,  vi,  sec.  614. 

2  Quoted  in  Rules,  191 2,  p.  29. 


72      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

CINCINNATI* 

I.   ELIGIBILITY  REQUIREMENTS   FOR  TEACHERS 

t 

(a)  Elementary  schools 

All  candidates  must  be  high  school  graduates  and  must 
have  had  a  two  year  normal  school  course  or  two  years' 
successful  experience  in  teaching. 

They  must  have  certificates  from  the  Cincinnati  board 
of  examiners  or  the  Ohio  state  board  of  examiners,  and  must 
have  done  practice  teaching  for  inspection  by  the  Cincinnati 
authorities. 

(b)  High  schools 

College  graduation  is  required  of  all  teachers  of  academic 
subjects.  Candidates  must  have  specialized  in  college  in 
the  subjects  which  they  desire  to  teach. 

2.  EXAMINATIONS  2  FOR  TESTING  THE  FITNESS  OF  CANDIDATES 

(a)  Elementary  schools 

All  candidates  must  be  examined  in  theory  and  practice 
of  teaching.  This  examination  covers  Psychology,  Methods, 
and  the  History  of  Education  in  the  last  two  centuries. 

The  other  subjects  are:  Reading,  Literature,  English 
Grammar  and  Composition,  Spelling,  History  of  the  United 
States  and  Civil  Government,  Geography,  Arithmetic,  Hy- 
giene and  Narcotics,  Writing,  Music,  and  Drawing.  "The 
examination  involves  questions  occurring  in  the  elementary 
course  of  study,  except  in  Literature  in  which  the  examina- 
tion is  based  upon  the  high  school  course  in  English." 
Graduates  of  the  College  for  Teachers  are  exempt  from 
examination,  except  in  theory  and  practice. 

1  The  following  exposition  is  based  on  a  Circular  of  Information  issued  in  191 2. 

2  Examinations  are  practically  as  prescribed  by  state  law. 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  73 

(b)  High  schools 

In  addition  to  the  examination  in  theory  and  practice 
explained  under  elementary  school  requirements,  candidates 
for  high  school  positions  must  pass  examinations  in  the 
following  subjects:  General  History,  Literature,  Algebra, 
Physics,  Physiology,  and  four  branches  selected  from  Latin, 
German,  Rhetoric,  Civil  Government,  Geometry,  Physical 
Geography,  Botany,  Chemistry. 

3.   THE  BOARD   OF  EXAMINERS 

According  to  the  state  law,1  the  board  of  examiners  con- 
sists of  three  members  selected  by  the  board  of  education 
for  a  term  of  three  years,  the  term  of  one  member  expiring 
each  year.  The  law  further  provides  that  two  of  the  mem- 
bers "must  have  had  at  least  two  years'  practical  experience 
in  teaching  in  the  public  schools.' '  The  compensation  is 
fixed  by  the  board  of  education  at  $400.  The  present  board 
consists  of  the  superintendent  of  schools,  a  newspaper  man, 
and  a  practicing  physician. 

"An  average  of  at  least  seventy-five  with  no  grade  below 
seventy  in  any  branch  is  required  for  a  certificate,  but  in 
order  to  be  ranked  for  appointment  in  the  first  or  preferred 
list,  an  average  of  not  less  than  eighty  is  required." 

4.   THE  MERIT  LIST 

(a)  Elementary  schools 

There  are  two  lists  of  candidates:  list  one  consists  of 
those  who  are  college  graduates,  and  who  have  taken  work 
in  education  or  have  had  two  years'  experience  in  teach- 
ing. Their  place  on  the  list  is  detennined  by  the  average 
of  their  college  record,  their  examination  record,  and  their 
grade  for  practice  teaching  under  inspection. 

1  Laws  of  191 2,  sec.  7838. 


74     TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

List  two  consists  of  those  who  are  high  school  graduates 
with  two  years  of  normal  training  or  two  years'  experience. 
Their  rank  is  determined  by  their  examination  record  and 
the  mark  in  practice  teaching. 

Candidates  are  appointed  invariably  in  the  order  of  rank. 
Teachers  are  not  appointed  from  the  second  as  long  as  there 
are  candidates  on  the  first  list. 

(b)  High  schools 

Appointments  are  usually  made  from  the  elementary 
schools,  although  this  is  not  an  invariable  rule,  as  it  is  the 
intention  to  select  the  best  candidate  for  a  position.  Can- 
didates for  high  school  positions  are  listed  according  to 
subjects  which  they  are  qualified  to  teach.  Their  rank  is 
determined  by  their  teaching  ability  as  shown  by  their 
work  in  the  elementary  school  or  in  the  high  schools  out- 
side the  city.  Their  college  records  in  the  subjects  they  wish 
to  teach,  the  amount  of  undergraduate  and  graduate  work 
they  have  taken  in  those  subjects,  the  amount  of  profes- 
sional work  in  education  they  have  taken,  and  their  records 
in  the  city  examination  are  also  taken  into  consideration. 

Candidates  are  invariably  appointed  from  the  head  of 
each  appropriate  merit  list. 

The  commendable  features  of  the  Cincinnati  system  are: 
the  exceptionally  high  academic  and  professional  standards 
established  for  elementary  and  high  school  teachers;  the 
strictness  with  which  appointments  are  made  from  the 
head  of  the  merit  list;  and  the  first  and  second  list  of  ele- 
mentary school  candidates. 

The  undesirable  features  of  the  Cincinnati  system  are: 
the  antiquated  requirement  established  by  state  law  that  a 
teacher  must  pass  an  academic  examination  in  almost  every 
subject  in  the  high  school  curriculum  before  he  is  eligible 
to  teach  any  one  of  them,  and  the  board  of  examiners  con- 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  75 

sisting  of  two  laymen,  who  may  or  may  not  be  good  judges 
of  the  qualifications  of  the  teachers. 

WORCESTER 
I.   ELIGIBILITY  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  TEACHERS 

(a)  Elementary  schools 

No  one  shall  be  entitled  to  take  an  examination  for  a  certificate 
in  the  graded  schools  who  has  not  taken  the  equivalent  of  a  high 
school  course,  and  who  has  not  graduated  from  a  normal  school  which 
has  a  full  three  years'  course,  including  one  year's  apprenticeship;  or, 
if  a  graduate  of  another  normal  school,  has  not  had  an  experience 
regarded  by  the  committee  as  equivalent  of  a  year's  apprenticeship.1 

No  teacher  shall  be  employed,  except  in  the  high  schools,  evening 
schools,  kindergartens,  or  as  a  special  teacher,  who  has  not  received 
a  certificate  from  the  committee  on  teachers.2 

(b)  High  schools 

The  committee  on  high  schools  shall  have  general  charge 
of  the  day  high  schools.  "All  certificates  of  qualification  for 
teachers  in  these  schools  shall  be  given  by  this  committee.' ' 3 
The  qualifications  for  appointment  to  the  high  schools  are 
not  defined  by  the  school  committee  in  its  regulations.  No 
examinations  are  specified.  The  whole  matter  of  determining 
the  qualifications  for  appointment,  and  the  examination  for 
testing  those  qualifications,  are  left  to  the  committee,  with- 
out any  special  supervision  by  the  school  committee. 

2.     EXAMINATIONS   FOR   TESTING   THE   FITNESS   OF 
CANDIDATES 

No  person  shall  receive  a  certificate  to  teach  in  the  public  schools 
of  the  city,  except  in  the  high  schools,  evening  schools,  kindergartens, 
and  as  a  special  teacher,  who  has  not  passed  a  satisfactory  examina- 
tion, under  the  direction  of  the  committee  on  teachers,  in  the  following 
subjects:  arithmetic,  grammar,  geography,  history,  civil  government, 
physiology,  psychology  and  principles  of  teaching,  drawing  and  music.4 

x  Rules,  1908,  chap,  iv,  sec.  2.  2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  sec.  12.  4  Ibid.,  sec.  2. 


76     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

The  rules  do  not  define  the  examinations  for  high  school 
teachers;  these  are  left  to  the  committee  on  high  schools. 

3.   THE  BOARD   OF  EXAMINERS 

The  committee  on  teachers 

shall  annually,  and  at  such  other  times  as  it  may  deem  expedient, 
examine  persons  desiring  to  teach  in  the  primary  and  grammar  grades 
of  the  day  schools,  and  shall  give  certificates  of  qualification  to  such 
persons  as  it  shall  consider  entitled  thereto.  No  certificate  shall  be 
granted  until  after  a  personal  examination  by  the  Committee  on 
Teachers.1 

The  committee  on  high  schools  determines  the  eligibility 
requirements,  and  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  defined,  we 
can  only  assume  that  the  committee  likewise  conducts  such 
examinations  as  it  deems  necessary. 

4.   THE  MERIT  LIST 

The  rules  do  not  contain  any  information  concerning  a 
merit  list.  However,  the  superintendent  states  that  there 
is  a  merit  list  of  elementary  school  candidates,  and  the  high 
school  teachers  "are  generally  chosen  by  confirming  the 
nominations  of  the  Superintendent."  One  wonders  how 
much  emphasis  should  be  placed  on  the  word  generally. 

The  system  in  Worcester  is  to  be  condemned  in  most 
respects:  the  eligibility  qualifications  are  defined  for  can- 
didates for  the  elementary  schools,  but  they  are  not  defined 
for  high  school  teachers;  with  no  defined  eligibility  re- 
quirements for  high  school  positions,  the  examinations  to 
test  those  qualifications  cannot  be  stated;  lay  committees 
of  the  board  conduct  examinations  and  issue  certificates,  in 
both  cases  without  any  supervision  by  the  board  or  superin- 
tendent. A  merit  list  is  not  officially  provided,  in  the  case 
of  either  the  elementary  or  the  secondary  school  candidates, 
although  it  exists  in  practice  in  the  case  of  the  former. 

1  Rules,  1908,  chap,  iv,  sect.  2. 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS 


77 


Comparative  Tabulations  of  Phases  of  Eligibility 
Requirements 

In  order  to  bring  together  some  of  the  results  of  the  pre- 
ceding detailed  study  of  selected  cities,  we  present  here  some 
comparative  tabulations  which,  because  of  the  preceding 
exposition,  carry  their  own  explanations.  Blank  spaces  in 
the  following  tabulations  mean  that  such  information  is 
not  contained  in  the  school  documents  consulted. 


I.  AMOUNT  OF   SCHOOLING  AND  TEACHING  EXPERIENCE 

(a)  Elementary  school  candidates 


Boston 

St.  Louis 

Portland 

Cincinnati 

Worcester 

Amount  of  schooling 

None 

Normal  school 

pre- 

X 

X 

X1 

X 

College  or  university 

scribed 

Teaching  experience 

2  yrs. 

2  yrs. 

None 

X2 

None 

Additional  examination 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

(b) 

High  school  candidates 

Amount  of  schooling 

Normal  school 

X 

College  or  university 

X 

X 

X 

X 

None 

Teaching  experience 

3  yrs. 

2  yrs. 

specified 

Additional  examination 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

2.    SUBJECTS   OF  EXAMINATIONS 

(a)  Elementary  school  candidates 

The  following  table  is  a  summary  of  the  examinations 
required  of  elementary  school  candidates  in  each  city: 

1  Minimum  requirement;  such  candidates  are  not  appointed  as  long  as  there 
are  college  graduates  on  the  first  preferred  list. 

8  Inexperienced  candidates  serve  at  least  two  months  as  cadets,  or  substitutes, 
in  the  Cincinnati  schools  before  being  appointed  to  regular  teaching  positions. 


78      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


Boston 

St.  Louis 

Portland 

Cincinnati 

Worcester 

Academic  Subjects  Required 

i.  English  language 

X 

.  .  . 

and  grammar 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

2.  Eng.  literature 

X 

X 

and  Am.  literature 

X 

.  .  . 

3.  Essays 

X 

.  .  . 

4.  Drawing 

X 

X 

X 

5.  Music 

X 

X 

X 

6.  Eng.  history  and 

X 

•   • 

Am.  history 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

civics 

X 

X 

X 

X 

7.  Arithmetic 

.  .  * 

X 

X 

X 

X 

or  algebra 

)» 

or  plane  geometry 

*  *   * 

8.  Physical  and  political 

geography 

.  .  . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

or  botany 

or  zoology 

X 

or  physiology 

X 

X 

and  narcotics 

X 

•   • 

9.  Latin 

or  German 

" 

or  French 

or  physics 

X 

or  chemistry 

10.  Reading 

X 

X 

X 

11.  Composition  and 

X 

X 

penmanship 

X 

X 

12.  Spelling 

X 

X 

13.  Bookkeeping 

X 

14.  Agriculture 

X 

15.  Hygiene  and 

X 

narcotics 

X 

Professional  Subjects  Required 

16.  Psychology  and 

X 

X 

X 

prin.  of  education 

X 

17.  Methods 

X 

.  .  . 

X 

X 

18.  History  of  education 

X 

X 

... 

ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS 
(b)  High  school  candidates 


79 


In  each  column,  under  the  name  of  the  city,  is  given  a 
list  of  the  subjects  in  which  candidates  for  high  school 
positions  are  examined: 


Boston 

St.  Louis 

Cincinnati           Portland,  Worcester 

Elementary  Examination 

i.  Eng.  and  Am.  lit- 

i. Eng.  literature 

1.  Literature          None 

erature 

defined 

2.  Latin  or  French  or 

2.  Latin 

3.  Algebra               in  these 

German 

cities 

3.  Essay 

4.  General  history 

3.  General  history 

2.  General  history 

4.  Algebra 

3.  Algebra 

Advanced  Examination 

5.  Geometry 

A  major  and  two  mi- 

6. History  and 

4.  Physics 

nors  in  a  given  field 

grammar  of 

5.  Physiology 

of  study 

Eng.  literature 

6.  Four  out  of 

7.  Natural  science 

eight  other 
high  school 
subjects 

Professional  Subjects 

Psychology  and  prin. 

History  and  theory 

Psychology 

of  education 

of  education 

History   of   educa- 
tion, methods 

(c)  Exemptions  from  examinations 

The  exemptions  from  the  regularly  prescribed  examina- 
tions for  elementary  school  candidates  are  as  follows: 

Boston.     Graduates  of  the  Boston  Normal  School. 

St.  Louis.  Graduates  of  the  St.  Louis  Teachers  College, 
and  such  graduates  of  colleges  and  normal  schools  as  the 
superintendent  deems  qualified. 

Portland.  Graduates  of  state  normal  schools  may  be 
certified  by  the  superintendent  without  examination. 

Cincinnati.  A  state  life  certificate  is  valid  without 
further  examination.  Graduates  of  the  College  for  Teach- 
ers of  the  University  of  Cincinnati  may  be  excused  from  all 
examinations  except  that  in  theory  and  practice. 


80     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Worcester.    No  exemptions. 

The  exemptions  from  the  regularly  prescribed  examina- 
tions for  high  school  candidates  are  as  follows: 

Boston.    None. 

St.  Louis.    None. 

Portland.    No  examinations  required. 

Cincinnati.  A  state  life  certificate  is  valid  without  fur- 
ther examination. 

Worcester.    No  examinations  prescribed. 


Boston 
St.  Louis 


Portland 

Cincinnati 

Worcester 


3.   MEMBERSHIP  OF  BOARD   OP  EXAMINERS 


Who  they  Are 

Superintendent  and  six  assistant  superintendents 
Superintendent  and  the  assistant  superintendents, 

and  such  supervisors,  principals,  and  teachers  as 

the  superintendents  may  select 
Superintendent 

Superintendent,  a  newspaper  man,  and  a  physician 
For  elementary  schools:  committee  on  teachers 
For  high  schools:  committee  on  high  schools 


4.   THE  MERIT  LIST 

The  following  tabulation  shows  whether  there  is  an 
official  merit  list  of  eligible  candidates  for  elementary 
schools  and  high  schools,  and  how  appointments  are  made 
from  it. 


For  Elementary 
Schools 

For  High 
Schools 

How  Appointments  are  Made 

Boston 
St.  Louis 
Portland 
Cincinnati 
Worcester 

Yes 

Yes 
Unofficial  one 

Yes 
Unofficial  one 

Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
No 

From  first  three  names 
In  rotation 
No  data 
First  name 
No  data 

ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  8 1 

Summary  of  Conclusions 

We  have  passed  in  review  the  eligibility  requirements 
and  the  methods  of  determining  them  in  selected  cities. 
The  variations  in  requirements  and  methods  in  these  five 
cities  are  typical  of  the  variety  of  standards  of  eligibility  of 
candidates  in  cities  generally. 

While  each  of  the  five  cities  is,  of  course,  an  object  of  much 
general  interest,  yet  each  city  was  selected  for  study  for 
particular  reasons.  Boston  represents  the  larger  cities.  It 
was  selected  particularly  to  illustrate  that  type  of  city 
which  has  a  board  of  examiners  consisting  of  the  profes- 
sional leaders  in  the  school  system,  namely,  the  board  of 
superintendents. 

St.  Louis  belongs  to  the  same  class  of  large  cities,  but  it 
illustrates  a  different  method  of  organizing  a  board  of  ex- 
aminers. The  superintendent  is  given  large  authority  and 
much  discretionary  power  in  accepting  credentials  of  can- 
didates in  lieu  of  examinations,  and  also  in  selecting  the 
members  of  the  committee  on  examinations. 

Portland  represents  the  small  cities,  and  it  illustrates 
how  the  examination  of  teachers  is  centralized,  by  law,  in 
the  superintendent's  office. 

Cincinnati  is  among  the  larger  cities  and  shows  how  a  state 
imposes  on  a  city  school  system  an  archaic  system  of  exami- 
nations. It  also  shows  how  a  large  local  board  of  educa- 
tion can  be  equally  non-progressive  in  constituting  a  board 
of  examiners  of  three  members,  two  of  whom  are  laymen. 

Worcester  is  among  the  second  class  cities  in  size  and  was 
selected  to  illustrate  an  undesirable  method,  too  commonly 
employed,  of  placing  the  discharge  of  the  highly  techni- 
cal and  professional  function  of  examining  teachers  in  the 
hands  of  a  committee  of  the  board  of  education  consisting  of 
laymen. 


82      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Concerning  eligibility  requirements  we  find: 
i.  At  least  a  normal  school  course  is  specified  as  the 
amount  of  schooling  required  of  elementary  school  candi- 
dates in  four  of  the  cities.    Boston  does  not  fix  as  a  standard 
any  amount  of  schooling. 

2.  College  or  university  graduation  is  fixed  as  the  amount 
of  schooling  required  of  high  school  candidates  in  three 
cities.  Worcester  does  not  define  any  amount  of  schooling. 
St.  Louis  may  accept  normal  graduates. 

3.  Boston  and  St.  Louis  fix  as  a  prerequisite  two  years' 
successful  experience  for  elementary  school  candidates. 
Boston  fixes  three  years  for  high  school  candidates  and 
Cincinnati  two  years. 

Concerning  the  examinations  required  of  elementary 
school  candidates,  we  find: 

1.  Only  English  grammar  and  American  history  are  re- 
quired of  candidates  in  all  five  cities. 

2.  Arithmetic  is  required  in  four  cities,  but  algebra  or 
plane  geometry  may  be  substituted  for  it  in  Boston.  Civics 
and  geography  are  likewise  required  in  four  of  these  five 
cities. 

3.  Drawing,  music,  and  reading  are  required  in  three  of 
the  five  cities. 

4.  Most  of  the  academic  subjects  are  required  of  candi- 
dates in  only  one  or  two  cities. 

5.  The  professional  subjects,  psychology  and  methods  of 
teaching,  are  required  in  three  out  of  five  cities. 

6.  In  general  there  is  great  variety  in  the  subjects  con- 
stituting the  examination  in  various  cities,  as  shown  by  the 
fact  that  there  are  thirty-two  different  subjects  offered  in 
only  five  different  cities. 

Concerning  the  examinations  required  of  high  school 
candidates,  we  find  more  variety  than  in  the  requirements 
of  elementary  school  candidates. 


ELIGIBILITY  QUALIFICATIONS  83 

1.  In  Worcester  no  examinations  for  high  school  candi- 
dates are  denned  in  the  rules. 

2.  In  Portland  only  one  series  of  examinations  is  denned 
by  law,  and  it  is  presumable  that  these  examinations  are 
for  elementary  school  candidates  only. 

3.  English  literature  and  general  history  are  the  only  sub- 
jects that  are  specifically  required  in  the  three  other  cities. 

Concerning  exemptions  from  the  prescribed  examinations, 
we  find: 

1.  The  graduates  of  the  local  teachers'  training  schools 
are  usually  wholly  or  partially  exempt  from  the  regular 
examinations. 

2.  Exemptions  from  the  examinations  for  elementary 
school  candidates  are  more  frequent  than  from  those  for 
high  school  candidates. 

Concerning  the  board  of  examiners  to  test  the  fitness  of 
candidates,  we  find: 

1.  In  Boston,  St.  Louis,  Portland,  and  Cincinnati  the 
superintendent  participates  in  the  examination  of  candidates 
for  teaching  positions;  in  Worcester  the  superintendent  does 
not,  according  to  the  rules,  exercise  such  participation. 

2.  In  Boston  and  in  St.  Louis  the  other  members  of  the 
board  are  members  of  the  profession  within  the  school 
system;   in  Portland  the  superintendent  acts  alone. 

3.  In  Cincinnati  the  members  of  the  board  consist  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools,  a  newspaper  man,  and  a  practic- 
ing physician. 

4.  In  Worcester  the  committee  on  teachers,  of  five  mem- 
bers, examines  candidates  for  the  elementary  schools,  and 
the  committee  on  high  schools,  of  nine  members,  does  like- 
wise for  the  high  schools. 

Concerning  a  merit  list  of  eligible  candidates,  we  find: 
1.  In  Boston,  St.  Louis,  and  Cincinnati  there  is  a  list  for 
both  the  elementary  and  the  high  schools. 


84     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

2.  In  Portland  there  is  a  merit  list  in  use,  although  it  is 
not  officially  provided  for  in  the  rules. 

3.  In  Worcester  there  is  a  merit  list  of  elementary  school 
candidates  in  use,  although  such  a  list  is  not  provided 
for  by  the  rules.  There  is  no  merit  list  of  high  school 
candidates. 

4.  In  Boston  the  election  of  teachers  from  the  merit  list 
is  from  among  the  first  three  candidates;  in  Cincinnati  the 
first  candidate  is  invariably  selected.  In  St.  Louis  the  rule 
is  to  select  the  first  person  named  on  the  list,  although  the 
board  reserves  the  right  to  pass  over  a  name. 


•     PART   II 
THE  CITY  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  AUTHORITY  OF  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  IN  CITIES 

Education  not  a  Federal  Matter.  Education  in  the  United 
States  is  a  state  and  not  a  federal  matter.  It  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  national  constitution.1  The  United  States 
bureau  of  education  has  no  authority  in  educational  mat- 
ters. Its  chief  function  is  the  dissemination  of  information. 
Its  influence  is  limited  to  the  voluntary  acceptance  of  its 
suggestion,  for  it  has  no  authority  either  to  direct  in  any 
way  educational  procedure,  or  to  require  even  the  slightest 
consideration  of  its  suggestions. 

Education  a  Function  of  the  State.  The  states  have  always 
viewed  education  as  an  object  of  their  special  concern. 
The  earliest  constitutions  adopted  by  the  various  states 
contain  sections  relating  to  education.2  The  states  recog- 
nized their  duty  or  obligation  toward  education  in  such 
terms  as  these: 

The  people  have  a  right  to  the  privilege  of  education,  and  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  state  to  guard  and  maintain  that  right.3 

The  State  Discharges  its  Responsibility  through  the  State 
Legislature.  To  carry  out  its  responsibility  for  education, 
the  state  customarily  requires  the  state  legislature  to  make 
suitable  provision  for  public  school  education.  The  first 
constitutional  command  to  a  state  legislature  to  establish 
a  complete  system  of  free  public  schools,  ranging  from  the 

1  Draper,  Functions  of  the  State  Touching  Education,  Ed.  Rev.  vol.  xv, 
pp.  105-120. 

2  Hinsdale,  Provision  Concerning  Education  in  the  State  Constitutions,  Report 
of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  1892-3,  vol.  ii,  pp.  1312-1414. 

8  Art.  i,  sec.  27,  Constitution  of  North  Carolina,  adopted  1876.  Hinsdale, 
ibid.,  p.  1385. 

87 


88      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

primary  school  to  the  university,  was  contained  in  the  con- 
stitution of  Indiana,1  as  follows: 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general  assembly,  as  soon  as  circum- 
stances will  permit,  to  provide  by  law  for  a  general  system  of  educa- 
tion, ascending  in  regular  gradation  from  township  schools  to  a  State 
university,  wherein  tuition  shall  be  gratis  and  equally  open  to  all.2 

Since  that  time  states  generally  through  their  constitu- 
tions have  made  it  the  duty  of  the  state  legislature  to  pro- 
vide suitable  free  public  education  for  the  people. 

Agencies  of  State  Educational  Administration.  While 
every  state  in  the  Union  has  established  some  kind  of  a 
central  state  educational  agency,  the  amount  of  authority 
delegated  to  it  differs  greatly  among  the  different  states. 
In  Massachusetts,  for  example,  the  state  board  of  education 
and  its  executive  exercise  comparatively  little  direction 
over  education  in  the  state:  "The  chief  function  of  the 
Board  has  been  to  advise,  enlighten  and  arouse,  but  not  to 
compel."- 3  In  New  York,4  on  the  other  hand,  the  board  of 
regents  through  its  state  commissioner  of  education  exer- 
cises extraordinary  authority  —  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial  —  over  all  phases  of  education  in  the  state.  Ob- 
viously each  form  of  state  control  affects  the  character  of 
the  local  achninistrative  control. 

Agencies  of  Local  Educational  Administration.  For  pur- 
poses of  local  school  administration  the  county,  the  town- 
ship, and  the  city  are  the  most  common  units.5  The  county 
system  is  most  common  in  the  Southern  States,  and  the 

1  Hinsdale,  Provision  Concerning  Education  in  the  State  Constitutions, 
Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  1892-3,  vol  ii,  p.  1320. 

2  Art.  ix,  sec.  2,  adopted  December  11,  1816.    Hinsdale,  ibid.,  p.  1319. 
8  Whitten,  Public  Administration  in  Massachusetts,  p.  24. 

4  Fairlie,  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  New  York  State,  p.  39.  Dutton 
and  Snedden,  Administration  of  Public  Education  in  the  United  States,  p.  67,  Edu- 
cation Law  of  1910,  in  Report  of  Education  Department,  New  York,  vol.  ii,  1910. 

6  Dutton  and  Snedden,  ibid.,  p.  73. 


AUTHORITY  OF  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  89 

township  system  in  the  Middle  West.  The  city  system  is, 
as  the  name  indicates,  the  usual  means  by  which  the  state 
legislature  undertakes  to  provide  education  in  cities.  Each 
of  these  local  administrative  units  bears  a  direct  relation 
to  the  state,  and  usually  little  or  no  administrative  relation- 
ship to  one  another. 

Cities  are  Creatures  of  the  State.  Cities  are  created  by 
acts  of  the  state  legislatures,  and 

In  the  absence  of  constitutional  provisions,  the  control  of  the 
state  through  its  legislative  assembly  is  absolute.  A  state  legislature 
may,  in  the  absence  of  such  provisions,  legislate  with  regard  to  cities 
as  it  will.1 

The  city  has  no  vested  rights;  it  has  no  powers  not  granted 
to  it  by  the  state  legislature.2  The  city  is  an  authority  of 
enumerated  powers,  and  can  exercise  only  such  powers  as 
are  explicitly  granted  to  it.3     Goodnow  says,  the  city 

is  not  only  an  organ  for  the  satisfaction  of  local  needs:  it  is  in  many 
cases  a  most  important  agent  of  the  state  government,  and  municipal 
officers  are  not  infrequently  called  upon  to  attend  to  matters  which 
interest  the  citizens  of  the  city  only  as  they  are  citizens  of  the  state, 
—  matters  which  do  not  directly  interest  municipal  government 
proper  at  all.4 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  except  in  so  far  as  that  authority 
is  limited  by  the  state  constitution,  the  state  is  absolute  in 
its  authority  over  the  city,  and  that  that  authority  is  exer- 
cised through  the  state  legislature. 

City  Board  of  Education*  a  State  Agency.     The  state 

1  Bard,  The  City  School  District,  p.  21. 

2  "City  corporations  are  emanations  of  the  supreme  law-making  power  of  the 
state,  and  they  are  established  for  the  more  convenient  government  of  the  people 
within  their  limits."  —  Darlington  vs.  Mayor  of  New  York,  31  N.  Y.  164.  Quoted 
by  Bard,  p.  21. 

3  Bard,  p.  21. 

4  Goodnow,  Municipal  Problems,  p.  63. 

6  Board  of  education  is  here  used  to  cover  the  central  school  authority  of  the 
city,  whether  it  is  called  locally  the  school  board,  the  school  committee,  board  of 
school  directors,  board  of  public  education,  or  some  other  similar  name. 


90      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

legislature,  through  provisions  in  the  city  charter  and  by 
special  or  general  laws,  creates  local  agencies  for  the  ad- 
ministration of  education  and  defines  their  powers  and 
responsibilities.  The  agency  thus  created  for  the  city,  as 
we  shall  see  later,  is  the  city  board  of  education.  By  thus 
delegating  power  and  responsibility  to  the  local  board  the 
state  does  not  relieve  itself  of  responsibility:  it  merely 
thereby  establishes  a  method  of  administration.  In  educa- 
tional affairs  "the  city  is  charged  with  important  duties, 
but  in  the  discharge  of  such  duties  it  acts  exclusively  as 
the  agent  of  the  state."  1  Also  concerning  the  city  school 
district,  which  is  the  unit  of  educational  administration, 
Bard  says, 

Unlike  the  city,  it  is  in  no  instance  recognized  as  having  duties  of 
its  own  in  the  discharge  of  which  the  state  need  not  interfere.  The 
city  school  district  is  exclusively  an  agent  of  the  state  created  for  the 
discharge  of  state  functions.2 

Further,  the  educational  officers  of  the  city  are  state 
and  not  municipal  officers,  because  they  are  acting  in  that 
capacity  as  agents  of  the  state.3  Every  important  city  in 
the  United  States,  except  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  has  a  board  of 
education.4  The  state  has  conferred  on  the  board  large 
responsibilities  and  powers.  One  of  its  important  responsi- 
bilities is  the  appointment  of  suitable  teachers.  Conse- 
quently a  study  of  the  methods  of  appointing  teachers  must 
take  into  consideration  the  board  of  education  as  the  au- 
thority charged  with  that  responsibility. 

Summary.  From  the  foregoing  exposition  it  will  be  seen 
that  education  in  the  cities  is  a  state  function;  that  cities 
are  creatures  of  the  state;  that  the  state  through  its  legis- 
lature has  absolute  control  over  the  cities,  subject  only  to 
state  constitutional  provisions;   that  the  state  legislature, 

1  Bard,  p.  23.  8  Ibid.,  p.  20.  »  Ibid.,  p.  23. 

4  Rollins,  School  Administration  in  Municipal  Government,  p.  21. 


AUTHORITY  OF  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  9 1 

either  through  charter  provisions  or  other  legislation,  es- 
tablishes a  city  board  of  education  and  confers  on  it  large 
responsibilities  and  powers;  that  among  these  powers  and 
responsibilities  is  the  appointment  of  teachers.  It  is  to  be 
observed,  further,  that  to  study  a  problem  of  local  school 
administration,  such  as  our  problem  is,  it  is  necessary  to 
consider  the  city  from  the  standpoint  of  (a)  its  charter  pro- 
visions as  they  relate  to  education,  (b)  the  general  state 
educational  laws  applicable  to  the  city,  and  (c)  the  special 
educational  laws  referring  to  the  city.  In  these  sources  are 
to  be  found  the  extent  of  state  direction  or  control  of  edu- 
cation in  the  cities.  Local  provisions  for  education  are  to 
be  found  largely  in  the  rules  and  regulations  of  city  boards 
of  education. 


CHAPTER  VI 

CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION:    THEIR  SIZE,  MEMBER- 
SHIP, AND   COMMITTEE  ORGANIZATION 

In  the  previous  chapter  the  authority  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion in  cities  was  considered.  In  this  chapter  I  shall  discuss 
(i)  the  size  of  city  boards  of  education;  (2)  the  member- 
ship of  city  boards,  covering  term  of  office,  compensation, 
methods  of  selection,  and  the  qualifications  of  members; 
and  (3)  the  committee  organization  of  city  boards.  The 
facts  which  form  the  basis  of  this  exposition  were  gathered 
in  part  from  school  documents,  and  in  part  were  furnished 
by  superintendents.  Except  when  specifically  noted,  the 
facts  tabulated  below  are  given  as  stated  by  the  superin- 
tendents or  as  verified  by  them.  The  tabulations  cover 
boards  of  education  in  the  seventy-three  cites  considered  in 
this  monograph.  As  before,  cities  are  classified  as  first  class, 
second  class,  and  third  class. 

The  Size  of  City  Boards  of  Education 

The  tabulations  on  pages  93  to  98  show  that  there  are 
small  boards  in  all  classes  of  cities,  and  that  there  are  like- 
wise large  boards  in  all  classes  of  cities,  although  the  larger 
cities,  on  the  whole,  do  have  larger  boards  of  education. 
Also  there  is  no  section  of  the  country  which  has  a  monop- 
oly of  either  the  large  or  the  small  board.  There  are  large 
boards  in  New  England  and  also  in  the  Middle  West;  there 
are  likewise  small  boards  in  these  two  sections  of  the  coun- 
try. The  graphs  on  pages  99  to  101,  based  on  these  tabu- 
lations, will  bring  out  these  and  other  facts. 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


93 


No.  of  Mem- 
bers on 
Committee 
on  Teachers1 

o   o 

t^.00    t^. 

co  »o 

CO 

fc 

Average 
Size  of  all 
Commit- 
tees 

<t> 

§  - 

vO  vO    t^. 

CO   ^fr 

fO 

ss 

•si* 

0) 

8   ^* 

CO  OO     co 

t>.  cs 

TT 

o  a  a  «j 

.O      M 

H 

K 

N 

>» 

cn 

J2 

J3 

Jj 

M 

i 

3 
<D     O 

<U     1)     o 

<U     4) 

a> 

to  g 
#9  -° 

bO  bO  &0 

l-c       (-1       >-« 

ctf    ctf    c3 

< 

«j    X 

+j   -i_>   +-> 

*->  *-> 

4-> 

<  PQ 

<<< 

<< 

< 

4)    <l> 

i 

S 
o 

Ph  S 

a 

5 

U     >-i 

a  a 

too 

*  a 

<u 

n 

"&£ 

goo 

£§. 

'3, 

II 

«3  +*  ^ 
^oo 

e8    H« 

8  C/3 

o 

Ph 

1 

8 

'd  ^}  T3 
4)     0)     <U 

.   •*-> 

<3  «   « 

-*->    -t~> 

•8  M 

.3  .3  .S 

.3  .3 

0) 

u 

1 

3  & 

0,0,0, 

aa 

2 

o 

-£  a 

O  O  O 

a  o 

u 

m 

W< 

<<< 

<< 

W 

a 
o 

1 

I 

<u   a> 

o>   o>   <u 

0)    <u 

52 

a    G 

fl    fl    CS 

ci  c 

C 

o  o 

o  o  o 

o  o 

O 

££ 

fcfcfc 

£S 

£ 

6 

si 

co  *o 

CO  vO  vo 

vO    co 

rr 

*l 

u->  vo 

Ov  »0  u-> 

Ox   Ov 

to 

6  6 

Tf 

M      M 

2J 

c3 

(3 

en 
1 

1 

llllil 

pq  £  pq  Jz;  pl,  p., 

it 

PQ  £ 

13 

o 

I 


94     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


.  of  Mem- 
bers on 
mmittee 
Teachers 

CO 

»o 

m    to  to   CO   CO 

CO   co 

0M 

Rll 

CO 

to 

to   ^  to   CO   CO 

0»    CO 

M 

>.  of 

nding 
nmit- 
ees 

vO 

CO  00  vO     co   Tf 

t^  vO 

*lcS 

£ 
&S 

to 

)  o>  "d   <u   a)   0) 

D     V 

(A 

bO  to 

to 

¥ 

N  in 

to  a  to  to  to 

m    g    C    E    >-. 

c3     |?     rt     rt     rt 

8>  H 

«J     >»J3 

r-^    1—4 

<* 

w3  X* 

to"5 

vN     ^ 

-*j    >%  -i_>    +j    ,i_> 

•*->     ■*-> 

to  o» 

<  pq<<< 

<< 

§ 

V 

<L> 

O    JH    J£    JS    ^ 

>>  a  "3,  S(*E 

M     <U 

i 

"ci 

'a, 

&a 

1 

Pm 

rt   o   o   o   o 

VH     0>     <U     d>     0) 

<*  Ph  Ph  Pui  Ph 

SI 

T3 

T3 

V 

<u 

<U 

o 

73 

-d 

ph  x3  T3  T3  *d 

fl-d 

U 

6 

0> 

•  fl     <U     D     W     0) 

.fl     <U 

«3 

-(-> 

O    -t->    -*->    *j    -*-> 

q,  <->   o   o   o 

8.3 

1 

o 

u 

Q 

<u 

gju    d>    <u    a> 

a,H 

K 

w 

W 

<WWWH 

<  W 

e 
1 

fl 

a> 
fl 

ssw§s 

Is 

i 
a 

o 

o 

o  o  #    o  o 

fe 

fc 

££     ££ 

CO 

a 

ll 

t 

<M 

CO  co  NO  vO  vo 

«t    « 

*j 

~i2 

«>. 

O* 

M      M      to    t^    <N 

"*  f» 

CI 

W      M      M               M 

*s 

8         8 

to 

to    to       +J 

1 

1 

> 

*J3 

V    ifl 

hill 

•—1          (1)              ••-4 

Its 

<u 

0 

.9 

,3  a)  2  ia  _,? 

55    to      *j 

J33  S 

"Si 

"8 


I 


ls*i 

«    o    <U 

s  a)  e 


"S 


§ 

j 

£ 

! 

3 

o 


bo   kL 

I  s 

II 


-s 

g 

2 


"fl 

I 

"8 


1 

0>    -if 

»  2 


■sa 


a  fe  9  a 


-fl   E  Jg 

m  c  a 
H  H  H 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


95 


U 


B  <y    (U 

3  SI  8 

©sen 

o-°  o  a 


113 


dfig 


B  3 


*J8 


4>    O 
d     d 
CO      «)  lfl  u>  io  to  W)  o    O    "S^VXO       rfvO        «    <0  ro  1*5 


CD     <L> 

d  d 

co       WJIOIOIOOIOO     5    ^^"J^       COVO         C*    CO   c*5   <0 


»o      aoo    <N    O  ^f  «<*•  d    d    0\0    «*<o     vOM        to  tJ-  t}-  to 


2>  i 


H    £    bObobObObObCbObO 


I- 

B  XJ 

•6  £ 
>>  >> 

pq  pq 


Oj     oj     <V     <U 
bfi  bo  bo  bO 


<<<< 


o      a)        <u<D<D££<ua>£fea> 

&  &   &&& as I la a I 


o  o 


8  8*  * 


X)  XJ 


X*  73 


X)  T3  X) 
<u    <u    0> 


w  w 


•  d  .d    a>    a>  -h  .d    a) 
*->  +j  +j    o    o  -^  -*->    o    o  -*-> 

pS MM  S  S  J3  jj  s  Sij 


x>  x) 


XJ  X> 


X  X 


W  W  7}  w 


d    d     sisll^ills 


s  s 

d  ci 

o  o 

o  * 

o  o 

££ 

fc 

££ 

rOO    «OrJ-vO    rJ-Tj-c*    co  *0 


co  to       •<*   Tf   co  to 


On  to   O    <0   M 
co  <0   m 


N  wj  viN  O^  0<  0»       0>  <* 


to  to  Ov  to 


■I 


ft*  8  ti  I 

is  £  -a  k  «5  o 


u 


^O 


3  3 


1  9i||:S|i^£i?8 


x) 
d 

Si 


«>    w    «  J3 

1 1  a  1 


il 

II 


! 

S. 

a   <u   o 

1  "  E 
111 

Pi 

d   a 
o  a 

si 


I  8 


1 


cl  P   <" 


§. 


|= r|3 

■  S     2     «     4) 

I  8-55 
8  b  -  ° 

s  '"8  s  8 
3  •si* 

^^  3  § 
II  1 1 

a  A  ?  ~ 

a 


S 


I 

*        -h       N       ro 


96     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


No.  of  Mem- 
bers on 
Committee 
on  Teachers 

CO 

VO 

CO 

«VO    N«fl   N 

C»    co  co  «    co 

Average 
Size  of  all 
Commit- 
tees 

fO 

to 

CO 

«    rj-  rj-  ^  n 

CI     CO    CO    CM     CO 

No.  of 
Standing 
Commit- 
tees 

VO 

CO 

CO 

M 

NO    VO    NO    00    NO 

J? 

O    CO 

f 

< 

At  large 
At  large 
At  large 
By  wards 
At  large 

CU     CU     CU     CU     CU 

be  bB  bo  bo  bO 
B    C    m    E    i~» 

03     CO     C3     C3_      M 

-t->       4->       4-<       +J       +-> 

f  | 

cd  Xi 
CO  Ov 

en 

co  !3 

^^ 

W      H 

en 

ft! 

ca  XI 

CO    W 

1 

CU 

! 

ft 

a 

1 

cu 

1 

8  8,3  8  8 

Ph  (3h  &  Pn  Ph 

CU     CU     CU    cu    CU 

'a'a'E'E'E 

CU    CU    cu    cu    CU 

Ph  fit  PL,  Ph  Ph 

u 

| 

1 

t 

6 

W 

1 

w 

w 

Elected 

Elected 

Appointed 

Elected 

Elected 

Elected 
Elected 
Elected 
Elected 
Elected 

a 
o 

J 

1 

1 

1 

CU    CO    1)    CU    cu 

s  fi  fi  c  s 

CU    cu    cu    cu 

fi     fi     fi     £  ^ 

IsSiSsS" 

4 

«■ 

** 

Th 

^t  CO  CO  COvO 

VO     co    co   io    t 

H 

VO 

H 

io  to  to  to  r» 

1 

1 

I 

3 

! 

1 

Indianapolis 
Grand  Rapids 
St.  Paul 
Omaha 
Kansas  City 

Denver 

Seattle 

Spokane 

Portland 

Oakland 

Total  32  cities 

CO      U 

■8  ^ 


8  a 


e 

1-. 

8. 

1 

3 

Q 

-0 

1 

HS 

CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


97 


No.  of  Mem- 
bers on 
Committee 
on  Teachers 

CO 

CO  CO 

«4>     •*•  V)      co    T3 

CU 

O    co   co 

Average 
Size  of  all 
Commit- 
tees 

CO 

CO  co 

^       rj-  to       co       CO 

eu 

0*0*0 
5 

No.  of 
Standing 
Commit- 
tees 

M 

*0       ON  t->-     vO        W 

M 

cu 

g  VO  vo 

< 

cej  ,0 
CO   o 

to    en 

PP  PQ 

-  |5         2     ^ 
h    mPQPQ     W     PQ 

eu          cu 

42      42 

i  5 

I 
i 

n 

42 

Ph 

CU    <U 

'a 'a 

fin  Ph 

eu      d   eu   eu   g   cu 

a    g-'a'E  £  g, 

8      8   8   cu   9   <u 
Pk     Ph  p_  PL,  O  P-. 

1 

8      <u 

b   'ft 

U       P-. 

a 

8 

u 

1 

u 

o 

<u 

a>   cu 

o   o 
<D    <u 

WW 

<u 

*d      *d  T3    <u  »S  T3 
eu      a>    cu  «    o    a> 

jy     jj  _a>  ^   g'ju 
W     W  W  vo    rf-W 

%      -a 
|       8 

cu        <— i 
<%       W 

I 

<3 

eu 

1 

cu       4)    cu       eu     -§ 
o      o   o      o      *-* 

* 

eu         eu 

1    1 

c* 

<M     CO 

(V.       VO     N         Tf        <M 

CO          co 

il 

co 

M 

C«    NO 
M 

CO       H     t^.       O        CO 

M          d      M          M 

lO  NVO 

1 

b 

a 

73 
E 

£ 

04 

U 

11 

J* 

o             a   g 

.§  |  i  s  g 

c     S'd      -13       erf 

* 

fl   o  o 
42  d# 

cu    »3  £3 
^  tt>  M 

J  1 

s« 

a 

1     ll 

"    1          fcJ  | 

s  8i 

S        o 

2     .  +-•  o 

mbe 

ards 

me 

ght 

il  me 
ith  w 
e  for 
ire  e 

Ills 

8:B.si5 

§  1 1  c 

1  >>  s  i 

8^g  rt  ^ 

2  s  §•§ 

111"? 

s-S-ts  g 

"O  o   a   rt 

fl'C    u    h 

e»      *       U     R 

.s  M 

11 

cr    cu 

eel  jQ 

!1 

1  a 

O     4> 

11 

d       i  f ' - 

|      &w3 

1     I|l 

1  . .  "8  *  8 

slisi^ 

S  a  8  ^  S  i2 
5   ce)  .2  h  fi   * 

confirmed  by 
or  is  ex-officio 
ident  of  board 
n  Antonio.  — 
ulated  here.   ' 
selected  is  not 

■m    >»   «i    ee?  ^3 

^S^"^ 

*    ~   «    w   o  2 

H  "^    a> 

III 

a 


98      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


5 


No.  of  Mem- 
bers on 
Committee 
on  Teachers 

CO 

2 

CO   «0   <N    O  O    »0   co 

Average 
Size  of  all 
Commit- 
tees 

CO 

co   co   M    o  ^O    «0  co 
3 

No.  of 

Standing 
Commit- 
tees 

Ov 

<U 

1 

vO    vo  vo    5    >"  ^iw) 
O 

* 

< 

< 

U>  W)  U)  bO 

)-,    1-1    %-,     l_ 

cd    rt    d    cd 

+->   -i_>    +->    ~t-> 
<<<< 

a>   a>   a>   <u  Tj   <u   a> 
b©  bO  bO  bO  S    be  bO 

i_    u,    »_    m    g    s-H    u. 

d    d    d    d    ;J    cj    d 

4->   -*j   -♦->   -*->    >.  -*->    +J 

<  <  <  <  pq  <  < 

1 

Ah 

£  JZ  J£  JZ 

Cu  Ph  Cl,  Pi, 

cu    cu    <u    cu 
Ph  Ph  pL,  Ph 

{)     U     O     V     U     U     V 

aftaaaaft 

O     D     O     U     O     l)     U 

Ph  Ph  Ph  Ph  Ph  Ph  P^ 

5 

■b 

S 

w 

T3  T3  T3  T3 
D     <U     <L>     0) 
*j    4->    •*->    -♦-) 
O     <_>     O     O 

o    cu    cu    cu 

WW  WW 

■rt  n3  *0  *T3  ^J  *C?  n3 

D     U     0)     U     D     5J     1) 

o   o   o   o   o   o   o 

cu    cu    cu    cu    cu    cu    cu 

w W0 w w w w 

1 

1 

9 

1 

cu   cu   <u   <u 
a  s  a  9 

1 

a>    cu    <u    cu    <u    cu    a 

g  a  c  a  9  a  a 

1 

el 

CI 

CO   *0   »o    Tf 

CO   CO   "«t   CO   -t   rfvo 

4 

00 

t>*  ^  lOVO 

t^vO    >fl   too    IOVO 
M 

'0 

I 

o 

ill  J 

§               1 

d    0    c    d                   <* 
u  £  £  S  W  o  ^    m 

s &£  8*.  §  J   3 

PhU<H$Ph'PQ     h 

! 
I 


J 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 
Seventeen  First  Class  Cities 


99 


The  number  of  cities  with  boards  of  education  of  various 
sizes  is  indicated  in  the  following  graph.  For  example,  one 
city  has  a  board  of  four  members,  two  cities  have  boards 
of  five  members,  and  so  on. 

Number  of  Members 

3456789   10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  2425  2627  28  29  30  31  32  33  3435  X' 


Lcfl 


II 


II 


II 


II 


Average  Size,  14 


Median  Size,  10  ■ 


X'  ■  1  with  46 


In  the  first  class  cities  boards  range  in  size  from  four 
members  in  San  Francisco  to  forty-six  members  in  New 
York,  with  an  average  membership  for  the  seventeen  cities 
of  just  fourteen  members.  There  is  no  central  tendency 
in  the  distribution:  three  cities  have  boards  of  seven,  three 
of  nine,  and  three  of  fifteen  members.  In  spite  of  the  sev- 
eral large  boards,  the  median  for  the  distribution  is  a  little 
below  ten. 

Thirty-two  Second  Class  Cities 

arranged  as  in  the  preceding  graph 

Number  of  Members 
3456789  10 11 12 13  14  15 1£  17 18 19  20  21 22  23  24  25  2627  28293031  32  33  3435 

13 
ia 
11 
10 
9 


7 
6 
5 

4 
3 

2 


JO. 


n   n 


Average  Size,  8.9  Median  Size,  7 


IOO      TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

In  the  second  class  cities  boards  range  in  size  from  three 
members  in  Albany  to  thirty-three  members  in  Providence, 
with  an  average  membership  for  the  thirty-two  cities  of  8.9 
members.  The  most  common  size  of  boards  is  five  mem- 
bers, twelve  of  the  cities  (37.5)  having  boards  of  that  size. 
The  second  class  cities  have  boards  of  much  more  uniform 
size  than  the  first  or  the  third  class  cities:  75  per  cent 
of  the  boards  in  the  second  class  cities  range  from  five  to 
nine  members.  Only  two  cities,  Worcester  and  Providence, 
have  boards  of  over  fourteen  members.  The  median  of  the 
distribution  is  seven. 

Twenty-three  Third  Class  Cities 


ARRANGED   AS   IN   THE   PRECEDING   GRAPH 

Number  or  Members 

3  4  s  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30 


n 


D Q 


Average  Size,  8.04  Median  Size,  7 


In  the  third  class  cities  boards  range  in  size  from  three 
members  in  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  and  Tucson,  Ariz.,  to  twenty- 
one  members  in  Wheeling,  W.  Va.  The  average  size  of 
boards  for  this  group  of  cities  is  8.04  members.  Although 
the  median  for  the  distribution  is  seven,  almost  60  per  cent 
of  the  cities  have  boards  of  from  five  to  seven  members. 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


IOI 


Summary  Table  for  Seventy-two  Cities 
of  all  Classes 

arranged  as  in  the  preceding  graph 

Number  of  Members 

345678    9  10  11  12  13  14  IS  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  3435  x' 


II 


n    n 


Average  Size,  9.87  Median  Size,  7  X'  "■  1  with  46 

The  summary  table  for  the  seventy-two  cities  shows  that 
the  average  size  of  boards  of  education  in  these  cities  is 
less  than  ten  members.  The  larger  cities  have  an  average 
somewhat  higher  and  the  smaller  cities  somewhat  lower 
than  this.  The  median  for  the  distribution  is  seven  mem- 
bers, and  the  most  common  size  is  five  members.  Almost 
70  per  cent  of  these  cities  have  boards  with  less  than  ten 
members. 


The  Membership  of  City  Boards  of  Education 

The  membership  of  boards  of  education  will  be  consid- 
ered under  the  following  headings:  (i)  term  of  office,  (2) 
compensation,  (3)  methods  of  selection,  and  (4)  qualifica- 
tions of  members. 


102      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 
(i)   TERM  OF  OFFICE 

The  following  summary  table  shows  the  length  of  term 
of  members  of  boards  of  education  in  the  first,  second,  and 
third  class  cities  which  we  are  studying. 

Years 
12  3  4  5  6 

First  class  cities o  2  5  3  1  6 

Second  class  cities o  1  12  10  3  5 

Third  class  cities o  5  8  5  1  2 

Totals o  8  ~2$  ~i&  ~$  ~$ 

The  graphs  on  page  103  show  the  facts  in  the  preceding 
table  in  more  striking  form.  A  review  of  these  graphs  for  the 
various  classes  of  cities  shows  that  city  school  board  mem- 
bers are  selected  for  a  minimum  term  of  two  years  and  a 
maximum  term  of  six  years.  The  most  common  term  in  the 
third  class  cities  is  six  years,  with  three  years  a  close  second. 
In  the  second  class  cities  the  tendency  is  decidedly  for  a 
three  or  a  four  year  term.  In  the  third  class  cities  the 
tendency  is  for  a  term  of  only  two  or  three  years.  There  is 
a  difference  of  about  three  months  in  the  average  length  of 
term  in  the  first  and  second  class  cities,  but  the  average 
term  in  the  third  class  cities  is  about  ten  months  less  than 
in  the  first  class  cities. 

The  summary  graph,  which  combines  all  the  cities,  shows 
that  the  most  common  term  in  all  cities  is  three  years,  with 
a  four  year  term  second  and  a  six  year  term  third.  These 
same  facts  are  of  interest  as  stated  in  the  following  table, 
which  shows  the  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  cities  in 
each  class  that  is  found  in  each  year's  term. 

Years 
2  3  4  5  6 

First  class  cities 11.7         29.4         17.6         5.9         35.3 

Second  class  cities 3.2         38.7         32.2         9.6         16.1 

Third  class  cities 23.8         38.1         23.8         4.8  9.5 

This  table  shows  that  of  the  first  class  cities,  35.3  per  cent 
select  their  school  board  members  for  a  term  of  six  years; 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


103 


Term  of  Office 
17  First  Class  Cities 
Average  Term  4  yrs.,  2  mo.,  24  days 

Years 
1234567 

6 
5 

4 
3 

2 

1 


31  Second  Class  Cities 

Average  Term  3  yrs.,  11  mo.,  22  days 


21  Third  Class  Cities 

Average  Term  3  yrs.,  4  mo.,  16  days 

8 

7 
6 

5 
4 
3 
2 


Total  of  69  Cities 


Average  Term  3  yrs.,  10  mo.,  2  days 

Years 
1234567 


25 
24 

23 
22 
21 
20 

19 
18 

17 
16 

15 
14 
13 
12 
11 
10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

S 

4 
3 

2 

1 


104      TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

that  38.7  per  cent  of  the  second  class  cities  select  members 
for  three  years;  and  that  38.1  per  cent  of  the  third  class 
cities  select  members  for  a  three  year  term.  By  considering 
the  per  cent  of  cities  of  each  class  in  any  column,  one  can 
make  some  interesting  comparisons.  For  example,  in  the 
two  year  column  there  are  11.7  per  cent  of  the  first  class 
cities,  3.2  per  cent  of  the  second  class  cities,  and  23.8  per 
cent  of  the  third  class  cities.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  the 
third  class  cities  select  school  board  members  for  a  shorter 
term  than  the  larger  cities.  This  same  fact  is  shown  by  the 
figures  in  the  six  year  column,  where  we  find  35.3  per  cent 
of  the  first  class  cities,  16.1  per  cent  of  the  second  class 
cities,  and  9.5  per  cent  of  the  third  class  cities.  These 
figures  show  conclusively  that  the  larger  cities  select  their 
board  members  for  a  longer  term  than  the  smaller  cities. 

(2)   COMPENSATION 

In  most  of  the  cities  members  of  the  board  of  education 
serve  without  financial  compensation.  There  are,  how- 
ever, some  important  exceptions.  In  San  Francisco  board 
members  are  paid  $3,000  per  year  and  are  required  to  give 
all  their  time  to  educational  service.  In  Rochester  board 
members  are  paid  $1,200.  In  Memphis  the  president  of  the 
board  receives  $600  and  other  members  $480  each  per  year. 
In  Milwaukee  each  member  receives  $3  per  meeting  for 
each  committee  meeting  attended,  but  the  total  compen- 
sation is  limited  to  $100  per  year  for  each  member.  In 
Los  Angeles  and  Oakland  members  receive  $10  per  meeting 
attended,  but  the  total  compensation  is  limited  to  $40  per 
month.  In  Manchester,  N.  H.,  members  receive  $25  per 
year.  In  Jacksonville,  Fla.  (a  county  board),  members 
receive  $4  per  day  for  services  performed.  In  Butte, 
Mont.,  members  receive  $4  per  meeting  attended.  From 
this  it  is  seen  that  nine  of  the  seventy-one  cities  compensate 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


105 


school  board  members  for  their  services;  that  the  com- 
pensation varies  greatly  in  amount;  and  that  except  in 
San  Francisco  and  Rochester  the  compensation  is  small. 


(3)   METHODS   OF   SELECTION 

School  board  members  are  commonly  either  appointed 
by  the  mayor  or  elected  by  the  people.  Although  the 
mayor  usually  appoints,  there  are  instances  of  appointment 
by  the  courts.  There  are  a  few  other  methods  of  selection, 
namely,  by  the  city  commissioners  who  govern  the  city, 
by  the  city  council,  or  by  a  mixed  method  of  election  and 
appointment.  Appointment  emphasizes  the  centralization 
of  municipal  affairs  in  the  office  of  mayor,  while  election 
emphasizes  direct  democratic  control  of  education  by  the 
people. 

The  area  from  which  board  members  are  selected  is  an 
important  matter.  Selection  is  from  the  city  at  large  or 
from  wards  or  districts  as  such.  There  is  also  a  mixed 
method  by  which  some  of  the  members  of  a  board  are  se- 
lected from  the  city  at  large  and  some  of  them  from  wards 
or  districts.  Members  selected  from  the  city  at  large 
represent  the  city  as  a  whole,  while  members  selected  from 
a  ward  or  district  are  inclined  to  feel  that  they  represent 
that  division  of  the  city  in  the  deliberations  of  the  board. 

The  following  chart  shows  the  various  methods  of  select- 
ing board  members,  and  the  number  of  cities  using  each 
method. 

3  at  large 

1  by  boroughs 

3  at  large 

1  at  large 

6  at  large 

2  mixed  methods 
(dist.  and  at  large) 

1  by  wards 


"  4  by  mayor                j 

8  appointed  . 

3  by  court 

17  first 
class 

1  by  mayor  and  city 
council 

cities 

9  elected 

9  by  people 

Io6      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 
5  appointed      5  by  mayor 
22  elected        22  by  people 


3 1  second 
class 
cities 


4  selected 


2  by  city  commis- 
sioners 
2  by  city  council 


5  at  large 
1 5  at  large 

3  by  wards 

4  mixed  methods 
2  at  large 


22  third 
class 
cities 


20  elected        20  by  people 


1  selected 
1  mixed 
method 


1  by  city  council 
r  elected  by  people 
\  appointed  by 
I  governor 


2  by  districts 

1 2  at  large 
6  by  wards 
2  mixed  methods 
1  at  large 

1  by  districts 


The  above  tabulation  is  largely  self-explanatory.  Never- 
theless I  should  like  to  call  particular  attention  to  some  of 
the  more  significant  facts  which  that  tabulation  shows. 

1.  Board  members  are  appointed  by  the  mayor  in  only 
ten  cities,  as  compared  with  fifty-two  cities  in  which  they 
are  elected  by  the  people. 

2.  Appointment  by  the  mayor  is  confined  exclusively  to 
the  first  and  second  class  cities. 

3.  Members  are  selected  from  the  city  at  large  in  forty- 
eight  cities,  as  compared  with  fourteen  cities  in  which  they 
are  selected  from  wards  or  districts  of  the  city  as  such. 

4.  The  courts  select  members  in  three  cities,  the  city 
council  in  two  cities,  and  the  city  commissioners  in  two 
cities. 

(4)    QUALIFICATIONS  OF  MEMBERS 

Democratic  control  of  education  means  that  the  people 
of  a  community  shall  be  unrestricted  in  their  selection  of 
those  who  are  to  constitute  the  board  of  education  and  who 
are  thus  to  provide  education.  This  democratic  principle 
prevails  in  varying  degrees  in  different  states,  depending 
on  the  state's  conception  of  its  own  obligation  either  to 
supervise  local  education  or  to  leave  that  supervision  largely 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  107 

to  local  adjustment.  The  widespread  application  of  this 
democratic  principle  accounts  for  the  absence  of  any  well 
denned  legal  qualifications  for  school  board  members  in 
many  states.  As  one  superintendent  put  it,  "Anyone  who 
can  get  elected"  is  considered  qualified  for  membership  in 
the  school  board.  This  is  the  price  we  pay  for  exercising 
democratic  control  over  education. 

In  school  administration,  as  in  politics,  the  theory  is 
that  the  people  are  entitled  to  just  as  good  school  officials 
as  they  select.  If  the  people  select  unsatisfactory  school 
board  members,  the  people  alone  must  bear  the  responsi- 
bility. Under  the  operation  of  this  democratic  principle 
the  schools  are  placed  under  the  general  direction  of  just 
as  efficient  or  just  as  inefficient  a  board  of  education  as  the 
people  are  sagacious  or  indifferent  enough  to  select.  In 
general  this  is  true  whether  the  selection  is  by  the  people 
directly,  or  indirectly  through  appointment  by  the  mayor. 

In  most  cities  boards  of  education  consist  of  lay  mem- 
bers specifically  selected  to  serve  on  that  Board.  In  only 
a  few  of  our  cities  l  are  there  ex-officio  members.  The 
prevailing  conception  is  that  the  board  of  education  should 
be  directly  responsible  to  the  people  for  the  discharge  of 
its  duties.  Its  members  are  so  selected,  therefore,  that  they 
may  directly  serve  the  people.  Undoubtedly  members  so 
selected  bring  greater  interest,  and  in  general  are  in  a  posi- 
tion to  devote  more  time  to  educational  problems  than  the 
mayor  or  the  president  of  the  city  council,  who  finds  his 
place  on  some  school  boards  solely  because  he  holds  political 
office. 

On  the  eligibility  qualifications  of  school  board  members 
the  Pennsylvania  law2  covers  the  general  items  which 

1  Providence,  R.  I.,  Atlanta,  Ga.,  Portland,  Me.,  Manchester,  N.  H. 

2  "Any  citizen  of  this  Commonwealth  having  a  good  moral  character,  being 
twenty-one  (21)  years  of  age  or  upwards,  and  having  been  a  resident  of  the  dis- 


108      TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF 'TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

are  in  whole  or  in  part  specified  in  laws  of  other  states. 
Besides  moral  character,  the  stated  qualifications  cover 
(a)  age,  (b)  residence,  and  (c)  exclusion  from  holding  cer- 
tain other  offices.  In  the  following  pages  we  shall  consider 
the  typical  (and  in  some  cases  the  unusual)  eligibility  re- 
quirements for  board  members  in  selected  cities. 

(a)  Age 

An  age  requirement  for  school  board  members  is  not 
specified  in  many  states,  but  in  some  it  is  indirectly  estab- 
blished  through  the  requirement  that  candidates  for  the 
school  board  shall  be  qualified  voters.  In  Pennsylvania  the 
minimum  age  is  twenty-one  years.1  In  Indianapolis 2  and 
Nashville3  the  minimum  age  is  twenty-five  years.  In 
Louisville 4  and  St.  Louis 5  the  minimum  age  is  thirty  years. 

(b)  Residence 

Naturally  the  laws  of  the  various  states  require  that 
candidates  for  the  school  board  shall  be  residents  of  the  city. 
In  cities  where  members  must  be  selected  from  wards  or 
districts  as  such,  they  must  be  residents  of  those  wards  or 
districts,  because  the  prevailing  idea  of  such  a  method  of 
selection  seems  to  be  that  the  member  so  selected  represents 
that  ward  in  the  deliberations  of  the  board. 

The  term  of  residence  varies  in  different  cities  from  five 
months  in  Rochester6  to  five  years  in  Nashville.7     The 

trict  for  at  least  one  (i)  year  prior  to  the  date  of  his  election  or  appointment, 
shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  School  Director  therein.  Providing  that  any 
person  holding  the  office  of  Mayor,  chief  burgess,  county  commissioner,  district 
attorney,  city,  borough,  or  township  treasurer,  city  councilman,  township  commis- 
sioner, road  supervisor,  tax  collector,  comptroller,  auditor  or  constable,  shall  not 
be  eligible  as  a  School  Director  in  this  Commonwealth."  —  Law  of  191 1,  sec.  207. 

1  School  Code,  191 1,  sec.  207. 

2  Session  Laws,  1899,  p.  434,  sec.  2.  3  City  Charter,  chap,  i,  sec.  50. 
4  Laws  of  1910,  sec.  4.                                      6  City  Charter,  sec.  4. 

6  Ibid.,  art.  i,  sec.  16.  7  Ibid.,  chap,  i,  sec.  50. 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  109 

following  cities  have  the  common  requirement  of  a  minimum 
of  three  years  of  residence:  Boston,1  Newark,2  St.  Louis,3 
Louisville,4  and  Indianapolis.5 

(c)  Exclusion  from  holding  certain  other  offices. 

The  Pennsylvania  law6  provides  that  members  of  the 
school  board  cannot  at  the  same  time  hold  the  office  of 
"Mayor,  chief  burgess,  county  commissioner,  road  super- 
visor, tax  collector,  comptroller,  auditor  or  constable. " 
Rochester's  city  charter7  provides  that  members  of  the 
board  cannot  "at  the  same  time  hold  more  than  one  city 
office."  Kentucky  laws  8  provide  that  persons  are  ineligible 
for  the  board  of  education  if  they  hold  any  office  under  the 
city,  district,  county,  or  state  government,  or  the  United 
States  government,  or  any  foreign  government.  The  law 9 
creating  the  school  board  in  Indianapolis  provides  that 
board  members  are  ineligible  to  hold  "any  elective  or  ap- 
pointive office  under  such  Board  of  School  Commissioners, 
and  under  the  government  of  such  city  while  holding  mem- 
bership in  said  Board." 

(d)  Other  qualifications 

In  Kentucky  a  board  member  must  be  a  housekeeper, 
or  a  real  estate  owner  in  his  city;  he  "must  not  be  interested 
in  any  contract  with  the  Board";  nor  can  he  have  "a 
father,  son,  brother,  wife,  daughter  or  sister"  employed  as 
teacher  "or  in  any  capacity"  by  the  board  of  education.10 

In  New  Jersey  and  in  New  Orleans  it  is  specified  that 
board  members  must  be  able  to  read  and  write.  In  Omaha 
and  St.  Louis  members  must  be  resident  tax-payers.    In 

1  Acts  of  1905,  chap.  349,  sec.  1.  2  General  School  Law,  sec.  47. 

8  City  Charter,  sec.  4.  4  Laws  of  1910,  sec.  4. 

6  Session  Laws,  1899,  p.  434,  sec.  2.  6  Laws  of  191 1,  sec.  207. 

7  Art.  i,  sec.  26.  8  Laws  of  1910,  sec.  4. 

9  Session  Laws,  1899,  p.  434,  sec.  2.  10  Laws  of  1910,  sec.  4. 


IIO      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

New  Haven  not  more  than  four  of  the  seven  members  can 
belong  to  the  same  political  party.  In  Wilmington,  Del., 
a  member  must  possess  $1,000  worth  of  real  property.  In 
Meridian,  Miss.,  a  member  must  be  "a  patron  of  the  public 
schools.' ' 

It  is  apparent  in  the  foregoing  discussion  that  the  quali- 
fications of  school  board  members  have  not  been  treated 
exhaustively.  Rather  it  has  been  my  purpose  merely  to 
illustrate  the  typical  qualifications  in  representative  cities. 
I  have  shown  that  the  typical  school  board  member  is  a 
layman  selected  for  this  particular  position,  and  is  required 
to  be  at  least  twenty-one  years  old  and  in  some  cases  at 
least  thirty  years  old;  he  is  also  a  resident  of  his  city,  and 
in  some  cases  a  resident  of  a  particular  ward  or  district, 
from  a  few  months  to  five  years,  with  three  years  the  usual 
time;  and  he  is  excluded  from  holding  any  other  city  office 
while  he  is  a  school  board  member.  Women  are  eligible 
to  membership  on  the  board  of  education  in  all  states 
where  they  have  the  right  to  vote  for  board  members. 

The  Committee  Organization  of  City  Boards 

Most  Boards  Organized  into  Committees.  The  organiza- 
tion of  the  board  of  education  for  the  purpose  of  appointing 
teachers  is  naturally  only  a  part  of  the  complete  organiza- 
tion of  the  board  for  carrying  on  its  business.  The  members 
of  most  boards  are  organized  into  standing  committees,  to 
which  are  assigned  the  general  supervision  of  the  larger 
phases  of  the  business  for  the  discharge  of  which  the  board 
as  a  whole  is  responsible.  Where  there  are  only  three 
standing  committees,  they  are  usually  finance,  instruction, 
and  buildings.  When  there  are  more  committees,  each  of 
these  three  large  divisions  or  phases  of  school  administra- 
tion is  subdivided,  sometimes  many  times. 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  III 

Transacting  Business  through  Committees.  When  a  board 
transacts  its  business  through  committees,  the  stated  meet- 
ings of  the  board  are  largely  given  over  to  hearing  reports 
of  standing  committees.  Usually  when  new  business  is 
presented  to  the  board,  it  must  be  referred  to  the  proper 
committee  before  it  can  be  considered  by  the  board.  This 
referring  by  the  board  may  be  with  power  to  act,  in  which 
case  the  board  may  never  formally  hear  from  the  matter 
again.  Or  the  referring  may  be  for  consideration  and  re- 
port, in  which  case  the  committee  makes  a  report  which 
carries  with  it  a  recommendation  to  the  board  for  the  dis- 
posal of  the  business.  The  formal  acceptance  by  the  board 
of  the  committee's  report  carries  with  it  the  approval  of  its 
accompanying  recommendation.  When  nominations  of  can- 
didates for  teaching  positions  made  by  the  superintendent 
go  to  a  committee  of  the  board,  they  are  dealt  with  as  any 
other  item  of  business.  The  committee  on  teachers  approves 
of  the  nomination  and  sends  the  report  along  to  the  board, 
which  adopts  it.  By  this  process  the  nominees  of  the  com- 
mittee or  superintendent  become  teachers  in  the  city  system. 

Some  Boards  which  Have  no  Standing  Committees.  How- 
ever, there  are  a  few  notable  exceptions  to  the  general  prop- 
osition that  boards  are  organized  into  standing  committees. 
The  boards  in  Boston,  Albany,  and  Rochester,  of  the  larger 
cities,  and  in  Meridian,  Miss.,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,  and 
Tucson,  Ariz.,  of  the  smaller  cities,  transact  their  business 
without  standing  committees.  It  is  an  interesting  fact 
that  the  boards  in  these  cities  are  composed  of  five  members 
or  less.  All  school  business  in  each  city  is  carried  on  by 
the  board  acting  as  a  whole.  From  the  experience  of  these 
cities  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  impossible  or  impracticable 
for  a  small  board  to  transact  its  business  without  the  assist- 
ance of  standing  committees. 

Varying  Conceptions  Shown  in  Organization  of  Standing 


112      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Committees,  Probably  no  other  single  feature  of  the  board's 
organization  reveals  better  the  varying  conceptions  held 
by  boards  of  education  of  their  functions  and  the  proper 
methods  of  discharging  them  than  the  organization  and 
definition  of  functions  of  their  standing  committees.  A 
detailed  study  of  the  rules  of  boards  covering  the  organiza- 
tion and  duties  of  standing  committees  would  reveal  some 
interesting  conceptions  of  school  administration.  But  we 
are  here  concerned  merely  with  the  standing  committees  in 
general,  as  a  means  by  which  the  board  carries  on  its  busi- 
ness. We  are  concerned  in  particular  with  the  committee 
on  teachers,  as  a  participant  in  the  appointment  of  teachers. 
We  shall  consider,  therefore,  these  topics:  (a)  the  number 
of  standing  committees  into  which  boards  are  divided;  (b) 
the  average  size  of  standing  committees;  and  (c)  the  irre- 
sponsibility of  standing  committees  in  general  and  of  the 
committee  on  teachers  in  particular. 

(a)  The  number  of  standing  committees  into  which  boards 

are  divided 

The  number  of  standing  committees  in  each  class  of 
cities  is  indicated  by  the  graphs  on  page  113.  The  first  graph 
shows  that  one  city  has  no  standing  committees,  that  four 
cities  have  three  committees,  that  two  have  four  commit- 
tees, and  so  on.  The  following  facts  are  worthy  of  special 
attention:  there  are  cities  of  all  sizes  in  which  the  board 
is  not  organized  into  standing  committees;  the  number  of 
standing  committees  of  the  board  in  each  class  of  cities 
is  high;  among  the  first  class  cities  one  (Cincinnati)  has 
twenty-seven  standing  committees;  among  the  second  class 
cities  one  (Providence)  has  nineteen;  and  among  the  third 
class  cities  Portland,  Me.,  and  Wilmington,  Del.,  each  has 
fifteen  standing  committees.  From  three  to  six  standing 
committees  for  each  board  are  the  most  common. 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 

Number  of  Standing  Committees 


113 


o  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  is  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28 

17  First  Class  Cities 


s 

4 

3 

2 

«n 

n  n 

n 

8 

7 

32  Second  Class  Cities 

6 

5 

4 

• 

3 

2 

I 

r 

m 

n 

6 

S 
4 

23  Third  Class  Cities 

3 
2 

1 

n 

— 

1 

rh    r 

SUMMARY  FOR  72  CITIES 
Number  of  Standing  Committees 

o  1  2  3  4  s  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  is  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28 


1 


EL 


n 


Median,  6  Mode,  6  Average,  6  + 


114      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

There  is  no  correlation  between  the  size  of  the  board  of 
education  and  the  number  of  standing  committees  into 
which  the  board  is  organized  for  business.  Some  small 
boards  have  no  committees  and  some  have  several.  Boston's 
board  of  five  members  is  not  organized  into  committees, 
while  New  Orleans'  board  of  the  same  size  has  four  standing 
committees  of  three  members  each.  The  same  is  true  of 
larger  boards.  Newark's  board  of  nine  members  has  three 
standing  committees  with  an  average  of  six  members  each. 
Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh,  in  the  same  state,  having 
boards  of  the  same  size,  are  organized  very  differently: 
Philadelphia  has  eight  standing  committees  of  about  six 
members  each,  while  Pittsburgh  has  only  three  standing 
committees  of  seven  members  each.  Cincinnati  with  a  board 
of  twenty-nine  members  has  twice  as  many  standing  com- 
mittees as  New  York  with  a  board  of  forty-six  members. 
In  Cincinnati  there  is  a  chairmanship  of  a  committee  for 
practically  every  member  of  the  board.  What  has  been 
said  about  first  class  cities  is  also  true  of  smaller  cities. 
The  number  of  committees  ranges  from  four  or  five  in 
many  cases  to  fifteen  in  Portland,  Me.,  and  nineteen  in 
Providence.  The  small  boards  still  keep  up  the  traditional 
committee  organization  of  the  larger  boards  which  they 
have  superseded. 

(b)  The  average  size  of  standing  committees 

The  size  of  the  standing  committees  does  not  vary  as 
much  as  the  number  of  committees.  The  number  of  mem- 
bers on  the  standing  committee  is  determined  to  some  extent 
by  the  number  of  members  on  the  board.  Where  there  are 
standing  committees,  each  member  is  given  one  or  more 
assignments.  From  the  following  graphs  it  will  be  seen  that 
committees  most  often  average  about  three  members,  with 
no  committees  with  more  than  seven  members  except  in 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


"5 


Average  Size  of  All  Committees 

i     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    io  n  12  13  14  15  16  17 


6 

16  First  Class  Cities 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

n 

15 
14 

13 

12 
II 
IO 

9 

8 

7 
6 

5 

4 
3 
2 

1 


30  Second  Class  Cities 


13 
12 
11 
10 

9 

8 

7 
6 

5 

4 
3 
2 

I 


20  Third  Class  Cities 


Il6      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Chicago,  where  there  are  committees  of  fifteen  members. 
The  average  size  of  all  committees  in  the  sixty-three  cities 
is  less  than  four  members. 

The  committee  on  teachers  is  usually  equal  to  or  larger 
than  the  average  size  of  other  standing  committees.  Boards 
of  education  show  their  conception  of  the  relative  impor- 
tance of  this  committee  by  making  it  one  of  the  largest  com- 
mittees of  the  board.  The  graphs,  based  on  the  figures  in 
the  tabulations  on  pages  93-98,  differ  so  little  from  the 
graphs  on  the  size  of  committees  in  general  that  it  is  not 
necessary  to  include  them. 

(c)   The  irresponsibility  of  standing  committees  in  general 
and  of  the  committee  on  teachers  in  particular 

Whatever  one's  assumption  may  be  concerning  the  legal 
power  or  general  influence  of  a  standing  committee,  a  care- 
ful study  of  its  work  in  the  light  of  effective  school  adminis- 
tration can  lead  only  to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  the 
committee  form  of  organization  of  the  board  of  education 
is  based  on  an  erroneous  conception  of  the  functions  of 
the  board  and  of  the  proper  method  of  discharging  them. 
Consider  as  an  illustration  the  type  of  appointment  of 
teachers  in  which  the  standing  committee  of  the  board  on 
teachers  approves  the  nominations  of  the  superintendent 
before  the  board  makes  the  appointments.1  Assume  that 
the  committee  exercises  the  largest  possible  influence  in 
the  appointment;  that  it  influences  the  superintendent 
to  make  proper  nominations;  that  it  never  approves  the 
nominations  of  unworthy  candidates;  that  it  never  fails  to 
approve  the  nomination  of  satisfactory  candidates;  and 
that  the  board  seldom  or  never  fails  to  adopt  the  commit- 
tee's recommendations.  In  such  a  case,  no  matter  how  the 
rules  may  read,  the  committee  really  appoints  the  teachers, 

1  See  Type  5,  p.  26. 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  117 

because,  as  in  most  cases  of  committee  reports,  the  board's 
approval  is  merely  a  matter  of  form. 

Assume,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  committee's  approval 
of  the  nominations  is  only  a  formal  matter;  that  the  super- 
intendent gives  little  or  no  attention  to  the  committee; 
and  that  the  board  itself  scrutinizes  carefully  the  nomina- 
tions of  the  superintendent.  In  this  case,  obviously,  the 
committee  has  little  influence  in  making  appointments. 
Between  these  two  extremes  of  authority  or  influence  which 
a  committee  may  exercise  there  are  many  possible  steps  of 
gradation.  But  my  contention  is  that  any  arrangement 
which  gives  a  standing  committee  of  the  board  any  author- 
ity to  participate  in  the  appointment  of  teachers  is  an  un- 
fortunate arrangement.  My  contention  is  based  on  the 
following  propositions:  (1)  the  small  standing  commit- 
tee is  likely  to  play  a  disproportionately  large  part  in  the 
transaction  of  the  board's  business;  (2)  the  committee 
form  of  organization  increases  materially  the  opportunities 
for  the  exercise  of  pernicious  influences;  and  (3)  the  com- 
mittee system  of  organization  violates  four  fundamental 
principles  of  effective  school  administration:  (a)  the  duties 
of  the  separate  committees  of  the  board  cannot  be  so  de- 
fined that  overlapping  of  authority  is  avoided;  (b)  therefore 
the  responsibility  of  each  committee  cannot  be  adequately 
fixed;  (c)  hence  the  accountability  of  each  committee  can- 
not be  insisted  on;  and  (d)  the  committee  system  tends  to 
confuse  lay  control  with  professional  and  executive  manage- 
ment.   These  propositions  will  be  discussed  in  turn. 

1.  The  standing  committee  of  the  board  consisting  of 
only  a  few  members  is  likely  to  play  a  part  in  the  transaction 
of  the  business  of  the  board  altogether  out  of  proportion  to 
the  membership  of  the  committee.  A  study  of  the  size  of 
standing  committees  of  boards  in  the  seventy-three  cities 
under  consideration  shows  that  in  more  than  80  per  cent 


Il8      TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

of  the  cases  each  standing  committee  is  made  up  of  less 
than  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  board.  In  10  per 
cent  of  the  cases  the  board  consists  of  five  members,  and 
each  committee  is  composed  of  three  members.  In  these 
cases  it  is  impossible  to  say  whether  the  size  of  the  com- 
mittee was  deliberately  fixed  so  as  to  include  a  majority  of 
the  membership  of  the  board,  or  whether  other  circumstances 
brought  about  the  same  result.  In  the  remaining  10  per 
cent  of  the  cases  each  committee  is  so  organized  as  to  in- 
clude a  majority  of  the  board  members.  When  a  commit- 
tee thus  constituted  makes  a  report,  if  it  be  a  unanimous 
report  as  it  ought  to  be,  it  really  is  the  board's  report,  be- 
cause a  majority  of  the  board  have  already  approved  it. 
For  example,  in  New  York  there  are  forty-eight  members  of 
the  board,  but  there  are  seldom  more  than  from  five  to 
seven  or  nine  members  on  any  standing  committee.  Couple 
this  fact  with  the  other  proposition  set  forth  earlier  in  this 
discussion,  namely,  that  the  reports  of  standing  committees 
are  usually,  through  force  of  necessity,  adopted  by  the 
board  without  discussion,  and  you  have  the  facts  which 
make  it  plain  that  a  committee  organization  really  results 
in  the  transaction  of  the  board's  business  by  a  number  of 
standing  committees,  made  up  of  a  minority  of  the  board 
members. 

2.  The  committee  form  of  organization  increases  materi- 
ally the  opportunities  for  the  exercise  of  pernicious  influence 
in  carrying  on  the  work  of  the  board.  Meetings  of  com- 
mittees can  easily  be  held  behind  closed  doors,  even  though 
such  meetings  by  the  whole  board  are  not  tolerated  by  the 
public.  Personal  influences  can  be  brought  to  bear  on  a 
committee  in  a  closed  meeting  that  would  never  be  at- 
tempted in  a  public  meeting  before  the  whole  board. 
Committees  are  usually  appointed  by  the  president  of  the 
board.    The  organization  of  committees  is  not  usually  re- 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  119 

viewed  by  the  board  as  a  whole,  and  may  or  may  not  meet 
with  its  approval.  If  the  president  so  desires,  it  is  com- 
paratively easy  to  make  assignments  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  the  committees  serve  his  own  personal  wishes  or  those 
of  some  other  member. 

3.  The  committee  system  of  organization  violates  four 
fundamental  principles  of  effective  school  administration. 
(a)  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  number  of  standing  com- 
mittees into  which  boards  are  divided  varies  greatly.  A 
careful  study  makes  it  perfectly  obvious  that  they  are  not 
organized  according  to  any  recognized  or  recognizable 
principles.  This  being  the  case,  the  assignment  of  duties 
and  the  definition  of  the  authority  of  committees  cannot  be 
satisfactorily  made.  In  the  apparent  haphazard  organiza- 
tion of  committees  the  functions  of  one  overlap  the  func- 
tions of  another.  In  some  cases  it  is  even  difficult  for  the 
board  to  decide  to  which  committee  an  item  of  new  business 
ought  to  be  referred.  This  impossibility  of  defining  the 
functions  of  each  committee,  so  that  their  functions  are 
mutually  exclusive,  is  not  so  important  in  itself  as  are  the 
consequences  to  which  it  leads. 

(b)  The  logical  result  of  not  being  able  to  define  defi- 
nitely the  functions  of  each  committee  is  that  the  responsi- 
bility for  the  discharge  of  any  function  cannot  be  definitely 
fixed.  Consider  again  the  case  of  the  appointment  of 
teachers  in  which  the  superintendent,  a  committee  of  the 
board,  and  the  board  itself  participate.  Legally  the  board 
of  education  is  responsible  for  the  employment  of  suitable 
teachers.  But  for  the  discharging  of  this  function  it  dele- 
gates part  of  that  responsibility  to  the  superintendent  of 
schools,  and  part  of  it  to  a  standing  committee  of  its  own 
members.  As  has  been  shown,  in  many  cases  the  rules  do 
not  define  clearly,  and  in  some  cases  do  not  define  at  all, 
the  part  which  each  plays  in  making  the  appointment. 


120      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

This  being  the  case,  the  board  cannot  hold  either  the  super- 
intendent or  the  committee  responsible  for  the  proper  per- 
formance of  its  part  in  the  procedure. 

(c)  The  result  of  not  being  able  to  fix  responsibility  for 
the  discharge  of  any  function  makes  it  impossible  to  hold 
each  agency  accountable  for  its  share  of  the  responsibility. 
A  standing  committee  of  the  board  cannot,  from  the  nature 
of  the  circumstances,  be  held  responsible  for  its  conduct 
either  by  the  public  or  by  the  board.  The  board  of  educa- 
tion is  the  representative  of  the  people  of  the  city  as  citizens 
of  the  state.  As  such  it  can  and  should  be  held  strictly 
responsible  for  all  activities  carried  on  under  its  direction. 
The  public  should  not  be  expected  or  required  to  go  beyond 
the  board  to  fix  responsibility.  The  board  should  be 
required  to  assume  complete  responsibility.  Any  other 
policy  or  the  exercise  of  any  other  principle  of  adminis- 
tration in  this  particular  matter  results  only  in  confusion 
and  demoralization.  If  the  public  looks  or  is  encouraged  to 
look  beyond  the  board  of  education  to  a  committee  to  fix 
the  responsibility  for  the  appointment  of  an  inefficient 
teacher,  where  shall  such  a  policy  end?  Why  should  not 
the  public  look  beyond  the  school  board  in  other  matters, 
such  as  the  kind  of  desks  that  should  be  bought,  or  the  kind 
of  books  to  be  used,  or  the  time  of  day  for  a  recess  period? 
But  if  the  public  should  not  hold  the  committee  responsible 
for  its  acts,  why  cannot  the  board  do  so?  The  board 
cannot  because  the  committee  is  a  part  of  the  board,  and 
in  case  its  conduct  is  called  in  question  the  accused  mem- 
bers (the  committee)  would  have  a  vote  on  the  question 
of  their  own  guilt.  Obviously  such  a  procedure  would  be 
a  farce.  Hence,  there  is,  in  reality,  no  qualified  judge  of 
the  committee's  work.  The  board  to  which  the  committee 
is  responsible  is  disqualified  because  of  its  inherent  rela- 
tionship to  the  defendant. 


CITY  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  121 

(d)  The  committee  system  of  the  board  of  education 
tends  to  confuse  lay  control  with  professional  and  executive 
management.  The  public  schools  belong  to  the  people. 
The  people  should  control  the  schools  through  some  agency 
created  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  will  of  the  people.  In 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  those  persons  selected  by  the 
people  to  constitute  the  board  of  education  will  usually  be 
laymen.  It  is  the  business  of  this  lay  board  to  exercise 
general  control  over  the  school  system  and  to  determine 
educational  policies.  The  professional  and  executive  man- 
agement should  be  delegated  by  the  board  to  those  pro- 
fessional educators  of  its  own  selection  whose  education, 
training,  and  experience  qualify  them  to  direct  and  manage 
a  system  of  public  education.  The  committee  system 
interferes  with  this  differentiation  of  the  functions  of  the 
board  and  of  its  professional  officers  in  that  a  large  part  of 
the  work  delegated  to  every  committee  of  the  board  is 
executive  work  which  should  be  performed  by  executive 
officers.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  quite  impossible,  to  maintain 
this  essential  division  of  labor  between  the  board  and  its 
officers  under  the  committee  system  of  organization. 

(d)  Summary 

In  the  foregoing  discussion  we  have  maintained  that,  how- 
ever great  or  however  small  the  influence  of  the  committee 
of  the  board  may  be  in  the  matter  of  appointing  teachers, 
the  committee  system  of  organization  for  the  transaction 
of  the  board's  business  is  unwise  for  several  reasons. 

The  few  members  of  a  standing  committee  play  alto- 
gether too  large  a  part  in  the  decisions  of  the  board,  as  shown 
by  the  fact  that  (i)  more  than  80  per  cent  of  the  committees 
are  minority  committees,  and  (2)  the  reports  of  commit- 
tees whether  large  or  small,  through  necessity,  are  seldom 
discussed  by  the  whole  board. 


122      TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

The  committee  organization  permits  the  exercise  of  per- 
nicious influences,  because  (i)  of  the  prevailing  method  of 
appointment  of  members  by  the  president  of  the  board, 
because  (2)  of  its  closed  meetings,  and  because  (3)  it  is  easier 
to  deal  unscrupulously  with  a  small  committee  than  it  is 
with  a  whole  board. 

The  committee  system  violates  four  principles  of  effec- 
tive administration,  as  follows:  (1)  The  duties  of  each  com- 
mittee cannot  be  clearly  defined,  because  the  functions  of 
committees  overlap,  due  to  the  fact  that  committees  are 
usually  organized  according  to  no  known  principle  of 
organization.  (2)  This  makes  it  impossible  to  fix  the  re- 
sponsibility of  each  committee,  because  no  one  knows  just 
what  its  duties  are.  (3)  The  absence  of  any  well  defined 
responsibilities  makes  it  impossible  to  hold  the  committee 
responsible  for  its  acts.  (4)  The  committee  system  tends 
to  confuse  lay  control  with  professional  and  executive 
management,  because  the  prevailing  practice  is  to  refer  the 
discharge  of  executive  functions  to  committees  of  the 
board  rather  than  to  the  board's  professional  executives. 
For  these  reasons  the  practice  of  boards  of  education  of 
organizing  into  standing  committees  for  the  transaction  of 
their  business  must  be  condemned. 


CHAPTER  VII 

CHANGES  IN  THE  SIZE  OF  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION, 
IN  METHODS  OF  SELECTING  MEMBERS,  AND  IN 
THEIR  TERMS  OF  OFFICE  IN  TWENTY-EIGHT 
CITIES,  FROM  1893  TO   1913 

What  have  been  the  changes  during  the  last  twenty  years 
in  such  important  features  of  boards  of  education  as  size, 
methods  of  selecting  members  and  their  terms  of  office? 
An  answer  to  this  question  would  not  only  be  of  interest  in 
itself,  but  it  would  also  furnish  a  basis  for  judging  what  the 
future  development  of  boards  of  education  is  likely  to  be. 
While  it  is  not  possible  within  the  limits  of  this  monograph 
to  indicate  the  changes  in  the  boards  of  education  in  all  the 
cities  included  in  this  study,  it  is  possible,  and  will  be  profit- 
able, to  indicate  some  important  changes  which  have  taken 
place  in  the  boards  in  twenty-eight  important  cities. 

In  1893  the  late  Commissioner  Draper  of  the  state  of 
New  York,  then  superintendent  of  instruction  in  Cleve- 
land, published  an  article  on  "Plans  of  Organization  for 
School  Purposes  in  Large  Cities."  !  In  that  article  Dr. 
Draper  gives  the  size  of  boards  of  education,  the  methods 
of  selecting  members,  and  the  terms  of  office  in  all  the  cities 
of  the  United  States  which  at  that  time  had  a  population  of 
over  100,000.  The  publication  of  these  facts  by  Dr.  Draper 
makes  it  easily  possible  to  compare  them  with  similar  facts 
for  the  same  cities  in  19 13,  just  twenty  years  later.  The 
comparison  will  be  made  under  the  following  headings: 
size  of  boards  of  education;  methods  of  selecting  members; 
and  term  of  office  of  members. 

1  Educational  Review,  vol.  vi,  pp.  1-16,  1893. 
123 


124     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

The  Size  of  Boards  of  Education 

Size  of  Boards  in  1893  and  in  igi 3.  The  following  table 
shows  the  size  of  the  board  of  education  in  every  city  of 
over  100,000  in  1893  and  the  size  of  the  board  in  the  same 
cities  in  1913. 


Cities 

1893 

1913 

Cities 

1893 

1913 

New  York 

21      1 
45     J 

46 

Newark 

30 

9 

Brooklyn 

Minneapolis 

7 

7 

Chicago 

21 

21 

Jersey  City 

7 

9 

Philadelphia 

37 

15 

Louisville 

24 

5 

St.  Louis 

21 

12 

Omaha 

15 

12 

Boston 

24 

5 

Rochester 

20 

5 

Baltimore 

23 

9 

St.  Paul 

7 

7 

San  Francisco 

12 

4 

Kansas  City 

6 

6 

Cincinnati 

30 

7 

Providence 

33 

33 

Cleveland 

7 

7 

Denver 

6 

5 

Buffalo 

Nobd. 
20 

Nobd. 
5 

Indianapolis 
Totals 

11 

5 

New  Orleans 

603 

294 

Pittsburgh 

37      } 
78     J 

15 

Average  no.  of 

Allegheny 

members 

22.33 

11.76 

Washington 

9 

9 

Detroit 

16 

21 

Milwaukee 

36 

15 

Reduction  in  Size  of  Boards  in  General.  It  should  be 
noted  that  the  city  of  Brooklyn  has  become  a  part  of 
greater  New  York,  and  also  that  the  former  school  district 
of  Allegheny  has  become  a  part  of  Pittsburgh.  As  indicated, 
Buffalo  has  no  school  board.  The  table  shows  that  the 
average  size  of  boards  of  education  in  the  twenty-seven 
cities  in  1893  was  twenty- two  members,  whereas  in  19 13, 
in  twenty-five  *  of  the  same  cities,  the  average  was  only 
eleven  members,  or  half  as  many.  This  absolute  reduc- 
tion in  the  number  of  members  on  school  boards  becomes 

1  Brooklyn  and  Allegheny  are  not  included  in  the  second  list,  for  the  reason 
stated  above. 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  125 

still  more  significant  when  it  is  pointed  out  that  relatively 
this  reduction  has  been  much  greater  because  of  the  increase 
in  size  of  the  cities  during  the  period.  The  population  of 
these  cities  has  increased  from  9,662,643  in  1893  to  16,- 
853,135  in  1913.  That  is  to  say,  in  1893  there  was  one 
board  member  for  every  16,024  inhabitants,  whereas  in 
19 1 3  there  was  one  board  member  for  every  57,914  inhab- 
itants. To  state  the  same  fact  in  another  way,  one  board 
member  represented  16,024  people  in  school  matters  in 
1893,  whereas  one  board  member  represented  57,914 
people  in  19 13,  a  truly  remarkable  increase  in  his  repre- 
sentative responsibility. 

Reduction  in  Size  Contemporaneous  with  Increased  Re- 
sponsibility.  This  change  to  smaller  boards  of  education 
has  taken  place  during  two  decades  when  the  educational 
activities  in  these  cities  have  been  increasing  at  an  ex- 
traordinary rate.  Instead  of  the  present  smaller  boards 
having  less  important  duties  to  perform,  they  have  larger 
problems  to  solve  and  are  responsible  for  a  greater  variety 
of  educational  and  administrative  functions.  Many  more 
pupils  have  to  be  provided  for,  more  school  houses  have  to 
be  built,  and  more  teachers  have  to  be  appointed  than 
twenty  years  ago.  In  addition  new  demands  in  education 
have  very  materially  increased  the  variety  of  the  present 
educational  activities,  and  hence  have  increased  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  boards  of  education.  Chief  among  these 
new  demands,  to  cite  only  one  illustration,  is  that  for  all 
kinds  of  vocational  education.  This  one  phase  of  public 
education  to-day  has  created  many  problems  of  educational 
administration  with  which  boards  of  education  of  two 
decades  ago  had  nothing  whatever  to  do. 

How  much  the  Size  of  Boards  has  Changed.  The  follow- 
ing diagram  shows  how  much  the  size  of  boards  of  educa- 
tion has  changed  during  the  past  twenty  years. 


126      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


o 

CO 


c 
c 

RE 

1 

E 

00 

"o 

J 

X 

<o 

8 
5  q 

<  i 
£ 

1 

1 

1 

■«*      tO      «       W 

-o    ^    ■*   <o 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  127 

These  diagrams  show  that  whereas  the  median  size  of 
boards  in  19 13  was  twenty-one  members,  it  was  only  nine 
members  in  19 13;  and  that,  as  has  already  been  stated 
above,  the  average  size  of  boards  has  been  reduced  from 
twenty-two  members  to  eleven  members.  In  this  group 
of  twenty-five  cities  there  are  only  two  cities  (New  York 
and  Providence)  which  have  boards  with  more  than  twenty- 
one  members,  as  compared  with  ten  such  cities  in  1893. 
While  New  York  now  has  the  largest  board  of  education 
of  any  city  in  the  United  States,  it  is  much  smaller  than 
the  combined  boards  of  the  former  cities  of  Brooklyn  and 
New  York.  Providence,  with  a  board  of  thirty-three 
members,  is  the  only  other  city  in  this  group  of  twenty-five 
cities  which  has  a  board  of  education  with  more  than 
twenty-one  members.  Through  the  consolidation  of  the 
school  districts  of  Allegheny  and  Pittsburgh,  two  boards 
of  seventy-eight  and  thirty-seven  members  respectively 
were  abolished  and  a  single  board  of  fifteen  members  was 
substituted.  In  1893  there  were  no  boards  of  education 
with  fewer  than  six  members.  In  19 13  seven  out  of  twenty- 
five  cities,  or  almost  a  third,  have  boards  of  four  or  five 
members.  These  twenty-five  cities  now  have  boards  of 
five  members  more  often  than  any  other  number.  Sixty- 
four  per  cent  of  these  cities  now  have  boards  of  nine 
members  or  less. 

The  further  study  of  the  comparative  size  of  boards  in 
1893  and  in  19 13  will  be  considered  in  detail  under  the  head- 
ings (a)  increases,  (b)  decreases,  and  (c)  no  changes. 

(a)  Increases.  Increases  in  the  size  of  boards  of  educa- 
tion among  these  twenty-five  cities  during  the  past  twenty 
years  have  taken  place  in  only  two  cities,  namely,  Detroit 
and  Jersey  City.  In  Detroit  the  increase  is  due  to  the 
growth  of  the  city  and  the  resulting  increase  in  the  number 
of  wards  into  which  the  city  is  divided.    The  members  are 


128      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

elected  by  wards,  and  as  the  number  of  wards  increases 
the  number  of  members  of  the  board  of  education  increases 
automatically.  Thus  does  a  purely  political  matter  directly 
affect  the  machinery  of  school  administration. 

In  1893  the  board  of  education  in  Jersey  City  l  consisted 
of  seven  members  appointed  by  the  mayor,  one  at  large  and 
one  each  from  the  six  school  districts  into  which  the  city 
was  divided.  In  1895  the  city  was  divided  into  twelve  wards 
and  the  board  was  automatically  increased  to  thirteen 
members,  one  at  large  and  one  from  each  ward.  In  191 2 
the  plan  was  changed,  so  that  now  there  are  nine  members, 
all  appointed  by  the  mayor  from  the  city  at  large.  Thus 
the  ward  method  of  selection  is  also  responsible  for  the 
increase  in  size  of  the  board  in  Jersey  City. 

(b)  Decreases,  Besides  the  decrease  in  the  number  of 
members  on  the  board  of  education  in  New  York  and 
Pittsburgh,  which  has  already  been  explained,  the  boards 
have  been  decreased  in  size  in  seventeen  out  of  the  twenty- 
five  cities  under  consideration.  The  amount  of  reduction 
has  ranged  from  a  single  member  in  the  case  of  Denver  to 
twenty- three  members  in  the  case  of  Cincinnati,  The 
diagram  on  page  129  shows  the  amount  of  decrease  in  each 
city. 

From  this  chart  it  is  seen  that  most  of  the  decreases  have 
resulted  in  a  board  with  less  than  ten  members:  two- 
thirds  of  the  fifteen  cities  concerned  now  have  boards 
with  less  than  ten  members.  Two  cities  reduced  their 
boards  to  twelve  members  and  two  to  fifteen  members. 
Six  cities  reduced  the  number  of  members  to  five,  which  is 
the  most  common  number  to  which  cities  have  reduced 
their  boards  during  the  past  twenty  years. 

(c)  No  Changes.     Of  the  twenty-five  cities  under  con- 

1  These  facts  were  furnished  by  the  present  superintendent,  Mr.  Henry  Snyder, 
in  a  letter  dated  January  21,  1914. 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


129 


o      *, 


1 


'i  % 


.5  M 

0    Ph 


0) 

1  -a 

I  i 

1  I 


M       0) 

«     o 


I  ,3 


OS    So 

*  -S  I  ^ 


I 

I 
•-3 


A  wiohOR 


130      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

sideration,  seven  have  made  no  change  in  the  size  of  their 
boards  of  education  during  the  past  two  decades.  A  glance 
at  the  table  will  show  the  reason :  five  of  these  cities  already- 
had  in  1893  what  may  be  called  small  boards  of  education. 
All  of  these  six  cities,  except  Providence  and  Chicago,  had 
boards  of  less  than  ten  members.  Providence  and  Chicago 
had  boards  of  thirty-three  and  twenty-one  members  re- 
spectively in  1893  and  have  not  changed  during  the  period  of 
twenty  years.  Washington  comes  next  with  a  board  of 
nine  members,  Cleveland,  Minneapolis,  and  St.  Paul  next 
with  boards  of  seven  members  each,  and  Kansas  City  last 
with  a  board  of  six  members. 

Summary.  From  the  above  exposition  it  is  clear  that  in 
the  cities  considered  there  has  been  a  decided  decrease  in 
the  number  of  members  constituting  the  boards  of  educa- 
tion. This  decrease  has  taken  place  during  a  period  of  two 
decades  when  boards  of  education  have  had  continuously 
to  assume  larger  responsibilities.  The  decreases  have  been, 
in  most  cases,  from  boards  of  twenty  or  more  to  boards  of 
nine  or  less.  The  number  of  members  to  which  the  boards 
were  most  commonly  reduced  was  five.  From  the  above 
there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  relation  between  the  size 
of  the  city  and  the  size  to  which  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  reduced.  The  above  facts  would  indicate  that,  in  general, 
boards  of  education  are  tending  toward  a  membership  of 
five;  at  present  there  are  several  boards  of  seven  and  nine 
members  and  a  single  board  of  four  members. 

The  Methods  of  Selecting  Members 

What  were  the  methods  of  selecting  members  in  1893? 
What  are  the  methods  in  the  same  cities  in  1913?  What 
are  the  specific  changes  which  have  been  made?  These 
questions  will  be  considered  in  order. 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


131 


(i)   METHOD  OF  SELECTING  MEMBERS  IN   1893  AND  IN   I913 

COMPARED 

The  following  tabulation  shows  how  members  were 
selected,  by  whom,  and  whether  at  large  or  by  wards  or 
districts  in  1893  and  in  19 13. 


1893 


Cities 

How  Chosen 

'     By  Whom 

At  Large 

By  Wards 

New  York 

Appointed 

Mayor 

At  large 

Brooklyn 

Appointed 

Mayor 

At  large 

Chicago 

Appointed 

Mayor > 

At  large 

Philadelphia 

Appointed 

Judges 

By  wards 

St.  Louis 2 

Elected 

People 

Yz  at  large 

%  by  wards 

Boston 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Baltimore 

Selected 

Council 

By  wards 

San  Francisco 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Cincinnati 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

Cleveland 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

New  Orleans 2 

Selected 

%  council 
%  state  board  of 
education 

By  districts 

Pittsburgh 

Selected 

District  boards 

By  districts 

Allegheny 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

Washington 

Selected 

Comm'rs  of  D.  C. 

By  districts 

Detroit 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

Milwaukee 

Selected 

Council 

By  wards 

Minneapolis 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Jersey  City 

Appointed 

Mayor 

By  wards 

Louisville 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

Omaha 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Rochester 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

St.  Paul 

Appointed 

Mayor 

At  large 

Kansas  City 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Providence 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

Denver 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Indianapolis 

Elected 

People 

By  districts 

Newark 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

1  Approved  by  the  city  council. 

2  Considered  as  having  two  methods  of  selecting  members,  as  indicated. 


132      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


1913 


Cities 

How  Chosen 

By  Whom 

At  Large 

By  Wards 

New  York 

Appointed 

Mayor 

By  boroughs 

Chicago 

Appointed 

Mayor 1 

At  large 

Philadelphia 

Appointed 

Judges 

At  large 

St.  Louis 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Boston 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Baltimore 

Appointed 

Mayor 

At  large 

San  Francisco 

Appointed 

Mayor 

At  large 

Cincinnati 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Cleveland 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

New  Orleans 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Pittsburgh 

Appointed 

Judges 

At  large 

Washington 

Appointed 

Judges 

At  large 

Detroit 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

Milwaukee 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Newark 

Appointed 

Mayor 

At  large 

Minneapolis 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Jersey  City 

Appointed 

Mayor 

At  large 

Louisville 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Omaha 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

Rochester 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

St.  Paul 

Appointed 

Mayor 

At  large 

Kansas  City 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Providence 

Elected 

People 

By  wards 

Denver 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Indianapolis 

Elected 

People 

At  large 

Of  the 
27  cities 
in  1893 


6  appointed 


16  elected 


6  selected 


The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  table  on  page  131  on 
the  methods  of  selecting  members  of  the  board  of  education 

J  ■?  of  Inrtxp 

y       y  1 1  by  wards 

1  by  mayor  and  city  council    1  at  large 
1  by  city  judges  1  by  wards 

y  "    p  I  8  by  wards  or  districts 

3  by  council 2  3  by  wards 

1  by  commissioners  of  D.  C.  1  by  wards 
1  by  district  boards  1  by  districts 

1  by  state  board  of  education  1  by  districts 

1  Approved  by  the  city  council. 

2  New  Orleans  had  two  methods  of  selecting  board  members:  two-fifths  by 
council  and  three-fifths  by  the  state  board  of  education. 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  133 

The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  table  on  page  132  on 
the  methods  of  selecting  members  of  the  board  of  education 
in  1913 


6  by  mayor 

f   5  at  large 

1   1  by  boroughs 

Of  the 

'  10  appointed 

1  by  mayor  and  council 

1  at  large 

25  cities' 

3  by  judges 

3  at  large 

1111913 

.  15  elected 

15  by  people 

f  1 2  at  large 
1  3  by  wards 

Summary.  In  1893  sixteen  cities  elected  school  board 
members  by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  while  by  19 13  this 
number  had  been  decreased  by  one.  In  1893  the  mayor 
appointed  school  board  members  in  five  cities,  while  in  1913 
this  number  had  been  increased  to  seven  cities.  In  1893 
twelve  cities  selected  members  from  the  city  at  large  and 
fifteen  cities  from  wards  or  districts.  By  19 13  twenty-one 
cities  were  selecting  members  from  the  city  at  large  and  only 
four  cities  from  wards  or  districts.  Viewing  the  above 
tabulations  as  a  whole,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  were  ten 
distinct  methods  of  selecting  school  board  members  in 
1893,  and  that  in  19 13  there  were  only  six  different  methods. 
Selection  by  city  council,  by  district  boards  of  education, 
by  the  state  board  of  education,  and  by  commissioners  of 
the  District  of  Columbia  has  been  eliminated  during  the 
past  twenty  years  in  these  twenty-seven  cities. 

(2)    SPECIFIC  CHANGES  THAT  HAVE  TAKEN  PLACE 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  the  number  of  changes 
which  have  taken  place  in  the  methods  of  selecting  board 
members  during  the  last  twenty  years  in  the  twenty-seven 
cities  under  consideration.  We  shall  now  consider  the  actual 
changes  which  have  been  made.  For  example,  it  is  desirable 
to  know  not  only  that  changes  have  been  made,  but  also 
whether,  for  example,  changes  are  from  appointment  by 


134     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

the  mayor  to  election  by  the  people  or  vice  versa.  If  an 
analysis  of  the  changes  show  a  well  defined  trend,  we  may 
be  able  to  establish  a  basis  for  determining  what  method  of 
selection  is  most  likely  to  become  general  or  approximately 
so.  The  changes  will  be  considered  under  two  heads : 
(a)  how  members  are  chosen  and  by  whom,  and  (b)  whether 
they  are  chosen  from  the  city  at  large  or  by  wards. 

(a)  How  members  are  chosen  and  by  whom 

Of  the  twenty-eight  cities  in  1893,  two  !  have  lost  their 
identity,  twenty  have  undergone  no  changes  in  respect  to 
the  method  of  selecting  board  members,  and  six  have  ex- 
perienced changes.  The  cities  and  the  changes  are  indicated 
in  the  following  table. 


i893 

1913 

Cities 

From 

To 

Baltimore 

Election  by  city  council 

Appointment  by  mayor 

Milwaukee 

Election  by  city  council 

Election  by  people 

San  Francisco 

Election  by  people 

Appointment  by  mayor 

Newark 

Election  by  people 

Appointment  by  mayor 

Washington 

Election  by  D.  C.  commissioners 

Appointment  by  judges 

Pittsburgh 

Election  by  district  boards  of 
education 

Appointment  by  judges 

The  result  of  these  changes  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
methods  employed  can  best  be  indicated  by  the  table  on 
page  135.  In  the  first  column  are  indicated  the  various 
methods  of  selection  involved;  in  the  second  column  the 
number  of  cities  gained  for  each  method  during  the  twenty 
year  period;  and  in  the  third  column  the  number  of  cities 
lost  to  each  method.  The  methods  are  arranged  in  the 
order  of  greatest  growth. 

1  Brooklyn  and  Allegheny. 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


135 


Methods 

Gained 

Lost 

Appointment  by  mayor 

3 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 

Appointment  by  judges 

O 

Election  by  people 

2 

Election  by  district  boards 

Election  by  D.  C.  commissioners 

Election  by  city  council 

I 

I 
2 

Selection  by  City  Council  Eliminated.  The  facts  in  the 
above  tabulation  need  some  detailed  consideration.  In  the 
first  place  it  should  be  noted  that  in  these  cities,  as  far  as 
the  board  of  education  is  concerned,  the  city  council  has 
lost  its  former  power  as  an  agency  in  school  affairs.  Chicago 
is  the  only  one  of  the  twenty-five  cities  that  permits  the 
city  council  to  have  anything  whatever  to  do  with  the 
selection  of  members  of  the  board  of  education.  And  in 
Chicago  the  city  council  only  approves  the  appointments 
made  by  the  mayor.  The  abolition  of  the  city  council  from 
participation  in  the  selection  of  board  members  indicates 
progress,  and  this  progress  is  entirely  in  accord  with  the 
decreased  participation  of  the  city  council  generally  in  the 
administration  of  city  affairs.1 

Increased  Selection  by  Judges  Probably  Exceptional.  The 
selection  of  board  members  in  Washington  by  the  com- 
missioners of  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  in  Pittsburgh 
by  district  boards  of  education,  were  special  methods  of 
selection,  and  hence  need  not  demand  our  special  con- 
sideration. The  significant  fact  in  the  changes  in  these  two 
cities  is  that  appointment  is  now  placed  in  the  hands  of 
judges.  Whether  appointment  by  judges  is  likely  to  be- 
come a  more  common  method  of  selecting  board  members  is 
a  difficult  question  to  answer.  In  1893  Philadelphia  was  the 
only  city  in  which  this  method  existed.    By  1913  Washing- 

1  See  Goodnow,  Municipal  Government,  chap.  x. 


136     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

ton  and  Pittsburgh  had  been  added.  Apparently  the  most 
significant  reason  for  the  adoption  of  this  method  of  selec- 
tion is  a  political  one.  In  its  effort  to  get  the  schools  out  of 
politics  and  to  keep  them  out,  each  city  has  lodged  the  power 
of  appointing  board  members  in  that  agency  of  our  local 
government  which  is  most  generally  recognized  as  being 
farthest  removed  from  local  politics,  namely,  the  courts. 
Assuming  that  any  administrative  agency  in  our  democratic 
form  of  government  feels  responsibility  to  the  source  which 
created  it,  the  fundamental  objection  to  this  method  of 
selection  is  that  it  makes  the  board  of  education  responsible 
to  the  court  rather  than  to  the  people  for  whom  schools 
and  education  are  provided.  Inasmuch  as  these  are  the 
only  cities  in  the  United  States,  of  those  covered  in  this 
study,  which  have  adopted  this  method  of  selection,  it  is 
fair  to  assume  that  this  method  is  likewise  an  exceptional 
one  rather  than  one  which  is  likely  to  be  generally  adopted. 
Election  by  People  Loses;  Appointment  by  Mayor  Gains. 
Election  by  the  people  as  a  method  of  selection  has  lost 
ground  during  the  past  two  decades,  and  appointment  by 
the  mayor  has  made  the  greatest  gains.  Whether  this  is 
indicative  of  the  most  likely  future  development  is  also 
difficult  to  say.  Taking  into  consideration  the  fact  that, 
in  the  second  class  and  third  class  cities  considered  in  this 
study,  a  decided  preference  is  shown  for  the  method  of  elec- 
tion by  the  people,  one  would  be  justified  in  concluding 
that  our  experience  in  the  application  of  these  two  methods 
has  not  been  sufficient  to  determine  the  advantage  of  the 
one  over  the  other.  The  tendency  indicated  during  the 
past  twenty  years  does  show  that  these  are  the  two  most 
common  methods  of  selection,  and  with  a  corresponding 
future  development  during  a  similar  period,  these  two 
methods  will  practically,  if  not  exclusively,  occupy  the  field. 
Which  of  them  will  ultimately  be  the  solution  of  the  problem, 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  1 37 

if  one  method  is  to  be  the  solution,  will  have  to  be  determined 
after  more  experience. 

Summary.  Concerning  how  and  by  whom  members  of 
the  board  of  education  are  selected,  the  following  facts  are 
significant:  the  comparatively  few  changes  in  the  methods 
in  use  during  the  twenty  year  period;  the  relatively  few 
methods  now  in  use;  the  increase  in  the  method  of  appoint- 
ment by  the  mayor;  the  small  loss  in  the  method  of  election 
by  the  people;  the  increase  in  the  method  of  appointment 
by  judges;  and  the  elimination  of  city  council  as  a  direct 
agency  in  selecting  board  members. 

(b)  Chosen  from  the  city  at  large  or  by  wards 

In  1893  members  of  the  board  were  selected  by  wards  or 
districts  in  sixteen  cities  and  from  the  city  at  large  in  only 
twelve  cities.1  In  19 13  members  were  selected  by  wards  or 
boroughs  in  only  four  cities  and  at  large  in  twenty-one  cities. 
The  changes  which  have  taken  place  have  all  been  from 
ward  or  district  selection  to  selection  from  the  city  at  large, 
except  in  the  two  cases  of  Omaha  and  New  York.  In 
Omaha  in  1893,  according  to  Draper,  members  were  elected 
by  the  people  from  the  city  at  large,  but  in  1913  the  mem- 
bers were  elected  by  the  people  by  wards.  Here  is  one  case 
of  a  deliberate  change  during  the  past  twenty  years  from  a 
method  which  is  apparently  gaining  in  popularity  to  a 
method  which  is  becoming  obsolete.  That  the  change  has 
proven  unsatisfactory  is  shown  by  information  obtained 
from  a  former  superintendent  of  schools  in  Omaha2  and 
from  a  business  man  of  the  city  3  who  knows  what  the  results 

1  St.  Louis  selected  members  partly  by  wards  and  partly  at  large,  so  that  this 
city  is  counted  with  both  groups  of  cities. 

2  Mr.  Carroll  G.  Pearse,  now  president  of  the  state  normal  school  at  Milwaukee, 
letter  of  January  6,  1914. 

3  C.  S.  Hayward,  president  of  the  Hayward  Brothers  Shoe  Company,  Omaha, 
letter  of  January  16,  1914. 


138      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

have  been.  The  law  was  changed  to  provide  for  the  election 
of  school  board  members  by  wards  as  a  democratic  political 
measure.1  At  the  time  the  change  was  made  the  legislature 
and  the  state  admimstration  were  Democratic,  although 
usually  Republican.1  The  measure  did  not,  at  the  time, 
meet  with  the  approval  of  the  people  whose  opinions  were 
of  most  value  concerning  school  matters  in  Omaha.2  "It 
is  certain  that  the  schools  have  not  been  better  managed 
since  than  they  were  before;  there  are  many  people  in  the 
city  who  think  that  the  methods  of  management  and  the 
quality  of  the  membership  of  the  Board  has  very  greatly 
deteriorated.,,  2 

The  results  of  the  change  as  viewed  by  Mr.  Hayward 
can  best  be  presented  in  a  paragraph  taken  from  his  letter: 

The  result  of  electing  members  by  wards  has  been  to  place  the 
Board  of  Education  in  the  worst  kind  of  ward  politics.  Under  the 
old  law  of  electing  members  at  large  it  was  possible  to  get  good  rep- 
resentative business  men  each  year  to  consent  to  become  members 
of  the  Board  of  Education. 

In  the  case  of  New  York  the  local  situation  explains  the 
change  from  selection  at  large  to  selection  by  boroughs. 
The  amalgamation  of  Brooklyn,  Long  Island  City,  and 
Richmond  with  New  York  into  greater  New  York  made  it 
seem  desirable  to  adopt  a  method  of  selecting  members 
which  would  give  each  borough  distinct  representation. 
Aside  from  these  two  cases,  it  is  a  striking  fact  that  all 
changes  have  been  from  the  method  which  emphasized 
district  representation  to  a  method  which  emphasizes  the 
city  as  the  unit  of  representation.  It  can  be  said  that 
selection  from  the  city  at  large  will  undoubtedly  come  ul- 
timately to  be  the  basis  of  selecting  members  of  the  board  of 
education  in  practically  all  cities. 

1  Mr.  Carroll  G.  Pearse,  now  president  of  the  state  normal  school  at  Mil- 
waukee, letter  of  January  6,  1914. 

2  Mr.  Carroll  G.  Pearse,  ibid. 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 
The  Term  of  Office  of  Members 


139 


Term  of  Office  in  Years,  in  1893  and  in  191 3,  Compared. 
The  following  table  shows  the  term  of  office  in  years  of 
members  of  the  board  of  education  in  the  cities  indicated  in 
1893  and  in  1913. 


Cities 

1893 

1913 

Cities 

1893 

1913 

New  York 

3 

5 

Newark 

2 

3 

Brooklyn 

3 

Minneapolis 

6 

6 

Chicago 

3 

3 

Jersey  City 

2 

2 

Philadelphia 

3 

6 

Louisville 

2 

4 

St.  Louis 

4 

6 

Omaha 

5 

3 

Boston 

3 

3 

Rochester 

2 

4 

Baltimore 

4 

6 

St.  Paul 

3 

2  or  32 

San  Francisco 

2 

4 

Kansas  City 

3 

6 

Cincinnati 

2 

4 

Providence 

3 

6 

Cleveland 

2 

4 

Denver 

2 

6 

Buffalo 

Nobd. 

4 

Nobd. 

4 

Indianapolis 
Totals 

3 

4 

New  Orleans 

85 

108 

Pittsburgh 

3 

6 

Average  term 

Allegheny- 

1,2,3! 

in  years 

2-93 

4.30 

Washington 

3 

3 

Detroit 

4 

3 

Milwaukee 

3 

6 

The  preceding  table  shows  that  the  average  term  of 
members  in  1893  was  2.93  years,  or  practically  two  years 
and  eleven  months,  while  in  19 13  it  had  increased  to  4.30 
years,  or  four  years  and  three  months.  During  the  twenty 
years  under  consideration  the  average  length  of  term  of 
members  has  increased  by  one  year  and  four  months,  or 
an  increase  of  over  45  per  cent. 

Charts  Showing  Increased  Length  of  Term.  The  following 
table  shows  how  the  terms  of  members  were  distributed  from 
one  to  six  years  in  1893  and  from  two  to  six  years  in  19 13. 

1  In  Allegheny  some  members  were  elected  for  one,  some  for  two,  and  some  for 
three  years.    These  were  treated  as  though  they  were  in  three  different  cities. 

2  In  St.  Paul  members  are  appointed  for  two  or  three  years.  These  were  treated 
as  though  they  were  in  two  separate  cities. 


140     TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


Terms  in  Years 

Number 
of  Cases 

1 

2 

3 

4 

s 

6 

7 

1893 

29  1 

I 

9 

13 

4 

1 

I 

0 

1913 

26  " 

O 

2 

7 

7 

1 

9 

0 

The  following  graph  will  show  these  same  facts  in  clearer 
form. 

Term  in  Years 

1234567 

IS 
14 
13 
12 

11  1913 

IO  : 

1893 


Median,  1893  =  3 
Median,  19 13  =4 


How  much  Change  there  has  Been.  The  further  consid- 
eration of  the  changes  which  have  taken  place  in  the  length 
of  term  of  members  of  boards  of  education  will  be  accord- 
ing to  the  following  headings,  (a)  increases,  {b)  decreases, 
and  (c)  no  changes. 

(a)  Increases.  Out  of  twenty-five  cities,  there  are  six- 
teen cases  of  increasing  the  term  of  members.  The  fol- 
lowing table  shows  the  amount  of  the  increase  in  each 
case. 


1  These  are  cases,  not  cities.    For  explanation,  see  notes  on  page  139. 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION 


141 


From 

To 

From 

To 

Years 

Years 

Years 

Fears 

Newark 

2 

3 

New  York 

3 

5 

San  Francisco 

2 

4 

Philadelphia 

3 

6 

Cincinnati 

2 

4 

Pittsburgh 

3 

6 

Cleveland 

2 

4 

Milwaukee 

3 

6 

Louisville 

2 

4 

Kansas  City- 

3 

6 

Rochester 

2 

4 

Providence 

3 

6 

Denver 

2 

6 

Baltimore 

4 

6 

Indianapolis 

3 

4 

St.  Louis 

4 

6 

The  following  considerations  should  be  noted:  in  all  cases 
except  Newark  the  change  has  resulted  in  a  term  of  four, 
five,  or  six  years;  six  years  is  the  most  common  term  to 
which  changes  have  been  made,  with  almost  as  many  cases 
of  four  year  terms;  and  two  cities  advanced  from  a  term  of 
four  years  to  one  of  six  years. 

(b)  Decreases.  In  three  cities,  Detroit,  Omaha,  and  St. 
Paul,  the  term  of  members  has  been  decreased  during  the 
twenty  years  from  1893  to  19 13.  The  term  in  Detroit 
was  reduced  from  four  to  three  years,  in  Omaha  from  five 
to  three  years,  and  in  St.  Paul  a  part  of  the  members  are 
now  elected  for  a  term  of  two  years  instead  of  three  years, 
as  formerly.  It  is  clear  from  the  above  facts  that  these  cities 
are  reactionary,  as  these  changes  are  not  in  harmony  with 
the  marked  changes  which  are  taking  place  throughout  the 
country. 

(c)  No  Changes.  In  seven  cities  there  has  been  no 
change  in  the  term  of  office  of  members.  It  will  be  interest- 
ing to  note  the  term  of  office  in  each  of  these  cities.  In 
Jersey  City  the  term  is  two  years;  in  Chicago,  Boston, 
Washington,  and  for  part  of  the  members  in  St.  Paul  the 
term  is  three  years;  in  New  Orleans  the  term  is  four  years; 
and  in  Minneapolis  the  term  is  already  six  years.  From 
the  tendency  shown  during  the  past  twenty  years  to  lengthen 
the  term  to  four  or  six  years,  it  may  be  confidently  expected 


142     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

that,  in  any  of  the  cities  with  a  term  of  three  years  or  less, 
changes  will  ultimately  be  made  to  a  term  of  at  least  four 
years,  and  more  likely  to  a  term  of  six  years.  Superintend- 
ents often  express  themselves  as  decidedly  in  favor  of  a 
longer  term  for  members  of  the  board,  in  order  that  there 
may  be  fewer  interruptions  in  the  pursuance  of  a  general 
policy,  interruptions  due  to  frequent  changes  in  the  mem- 
bership of  the  board.1 

Conclusions 

The  summary  at  the  close  of  the  discussion  of  each  sep- 
arate topic  makes  unnecessary  a  repetition  here  of  the  facts 
which  the  study  of  this  topic  has  brought  out.  However, 
it  will  be  profitable  to  state  in  general  terms  the  conclu- 
sions concerning  certain  features  of  the  board  of  edu- 
cation, which  can  be  deduced  from  the  facts  presented  in 
the  preceding  pages.  These  conclusions  are  presented 
by  topics,  in  the  same  order  in  which  the  topics  were 
discussed. 

(i)  CONCERNING  THE  SIZE  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 

i.  From  the  numerous  but  differing  changes  in  the 
boards  of  education  which  have  taken  place  during  the  past 
twenty  years,  it  seems  clear  that  society  has  not  yet  demon- 
strated by  experience  what  the  size  of  the  board  should  be. 
From  the  tendency  shown,  however,  it  is  clear  that  the 
board  must  be  a  small  one,  probably  five  members,  or  at 
most  not  more  than  seven  members. 

2.  The  changes  which  have  taken  place  fail  to  indicate 
that  a  large  city  needs  any  larger  board  of  education  than 
a  small  city. 

1  For  illustration,  see  Preprint  of  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Schools,  Chi- 
cago, for  19 13,  p.  29. 


CHANGES  IN  BOARDS  OF  EDUCATION  143 

(2)  CONCERNING    METHODS    OF    SELECTING    MEMBERS 

i.  The  tendency  which  the  past  twenty  years  has  shown 
in  the  matter  of  selecting  board  members  is  toward  either 
appointment  by  the  mayor  or  election  by  the  people,  other 
methods  having  been  practically  eliminated. 

2.  Assuming  that  there  is  one  best  method  which  will 
survive,  as  yet  there  is  no  evidence  to  indicate  which 
method  is  ultimately  to  prevail  over  the  other. 

3.  The  selection  of  members  at  large  is  so  nearly  the  only 
basis  now  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  to  be  the 
prevailing  basis. 

(3)  CONCERNING  THE  TERM  OF  OFFICE  OF  MEMBERS 

i.  The  lengthening  of  the  term  of  office  has  been  so 
universal  and  so  marked  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
longer  term  has  come  to  stay. 

2.  Experience  does  not  indicate  whether  the  term  should 
be  four  or  six  years,  as  the  number  of  increases  to  each  of 
these  terms  has  been  about  equal. 

Finally,  the  standard  board  of  education  toward  which 
boards  of  education  generally  have  been  developing  in 
these  twenty-eight  cities  during  the  past  twenty  years  is 
a  board  of  five  members  (or  at  most  not  over  seven  mem- 
bers), either  appointed  by  the  mayor  or  elected  by  the  people 
from  the  city  at  large,  who  shall  serve  for  a  term  of  four  or 
six  years. 


PART  III 
THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF   SCHOOLS 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS:  SELECTION, 
TENURE,  AND  SALARY 

As  has  already  been  stated,  the  office  of  superintendent  of 
schools  has  been  established  in  every  city  of  importance  in 
the  United  States.  In  previous  chapters  I  have  also  shown 
that  in  a  large  majority  of  the  cities  under  consideration 
the  superintendent  participates  in  the  appointment  of 
teachers.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  consider  the 
selection,  tenure,  and  salary  of  the  superintendent.  These 
will  indicate,  in  a  general  way,  to  whom  the  superintendent 
is  responsible,  the  stability  of  his  position,  and  the  impor- 
tance of  his  office  as  viewed  by  the  community.  The  facts 
in  the  several  tables  were  gathered  from  various  sources; 
except  when  noted  to  the  contrary,  they  have  been  con- 
firmed by  the  superintendents  concerned. 

How  the  Superintendent  is  Selected 

The  city  superintendent  is  an  officer  of  the  city  board  of 
education  and  in  most  cities  is  elected  by  that  board.  There 
are  a  few  conspicuous  exceptions.  In  Buffalo  and  San 
Francisco  the  superintendent  is  elected  by  the  people  at  a 
general  election.  The  superintendent  in  Jacksonville,  Fla., 
a  county  superintendency,  is  likewise  elected  by  the  people. 
In  Richmond  he  is  selected  by  the  state  board  of  education. 
Aside  from  these  exceptions,  the  superintendent  in  each 
city  covered  by  our  study  is  chosen  by  the  city  board  of 
education. 

As  an  officer  of  the  board,  the  superintendent's  duties  and 

147 


148      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

(a)  First  Class  Cities 


Tenure 

Salary 

Cities 

How  Chosen 

Term  in 
Years 

How 
Fixed 

Amount 

How 
Fixed 

Boston 

By  board l 

6 

By  law 

$10,000 

By  board 2 

New  York 

By  board 

6 

By  law 

I0,000 

By  board 

Buffalo 

Elected  by 
people 

4 

By  charter 

7,500 

By  city 
council 

Newark 

By  board 

Indef. 

By  board 

7,000 

By  board 

Philadelphia 

By  board 

1 

By  board 3 

9,000 

By  board 

Pittsburgh 

By  board 

4 

By  board 

9,000 

By  board 

Baltimore 

By  board 

Indef. 

By  board 

5,000 

By  board 

Washington 

By  board 

3 

By  congress 

6,000 

By  congress 

New  Orleans 

By  board 

4 

By  law 

5,000 

By  board 

Cleveland 

By  board 

34 

By  board 

6,000 

By  board 

Cincinnati 

By  board 

4 

By  board 

IO,000 

By  board 

Chicago 

By  board 

1 

By  board 

IO,000 

By  board 

Detroit 

By  board 

3 

By  board 

6,000 

By  board 

Milwaukee 

By  board 

3 

By  law 

6,000 

By  board 

Minneapolis 

By  board 

3 

By  board 

5,5O0 

By  board 

St.  Louis 

By  board 

4 

By  law 

8,000 

By  board 

San  Francisco 

Elected  by 
people 

4 

By  law 

4,000 

By  law 

Los  Angeles 

By  board 

4 

By  board 

6,000 

By  board 

1  "  By  board  "  means  by  city  board  of  education. 

2  With  approval  of  the  mayor. 

3  By  law  the  superintendent  in  Philadelphia  may  be  elected  for  a  term  of  four 
years,  the  same  as  in  Pittsburgh.    The  board  fixes  the  term  at  one  year. 

4  The  law  fixes  the  maximum  at  five  years  after  the  first  term;  the  board  fixes 
the  term  as  indicated.  

8  First  appointment,  one  year;  second  may  be  for  five  years. 

4  By  board  of  estimate  and  apportionment. 

6  Law  fixes  $2,370  as  salary;  city  council  adds  $2,230. 

6  By  law  not  to  exceed  five  years. 

7  By  rules  of  board,  superintendent  cannot  be  elected  for  more  than  three  year 
term. 

8  By  law  not  to  exceed  three  year  term. 

Note.  The  salary  of  the  superintendent  in  Denver  is  $6,000.  This  correction 
was  received  too  late  for  me  to  refigure  the  computations  based  on  this  table.  How- 
ever, the  changes  would  be  slight. 


THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS      149 

(b)  Second  Class  Cities 


Tenure 

Salary 

Cities 

How  Chosen 

Term  in 
Years 

How 
Fixed 

Amount 

How 
Fixed 

Cambridge 

By  board 

I1 

By  board 

$5,000 

By  board 

Fall  River 

By  board 

I 

By  board 

3,500 

By  board 

Lowell 

(No  data) 

Worcester 

By  board 

3 

By  rules 

4,250 

By  board 

Providence 

By  board 

i2 

By  rules 

5,000 

By  board 

Bridgeport 

By  board 

3 

By  rules 

4,IOO 

By  board 

New  Haven 

By  board 

i3 

By  charter 

4,5O0 

By  board 

Albany- 

By  board 

Indef. 

(No  data) 

3,000 

4 

Rochester 

By  board 

4 

By  charter 

5,000 

By  board 

Syracuse 

By  board 

4 

By  law 

4,000 

By  board 

Jersey  City 

By  board 

Indef. 

By  board 

6,500 

By  board 

Paterson 

By  board 

i2 

By  law 

3,600 

By  board 

Scranton 

By  board 

4 

By  law 

5,000 

By  board 

Richmond 

By  state 
bd.  of  ed. 

4 

Bylaw 

4,6oo5 

By  law 

Atlanta 

By  board 

1 

By  rules 

3,600 

By  board 

Louisville 

By  board 

i1 

By  law 

5,000 

By  law 

Memphis 

By  board 

2 

By  board 

3,600 

By  law 

Nashville 

By  board 

36 

By  board 

3,600 

By  board 

Birmingham 

By  board 

5 

By  board 

5,000 

By  board 

Columbus 

By  board 

46 

By  rules 

4,000 

By  board 

Dayton 

By  board 

5 

By  law 

5,ooo 

By  board 

Toledo  * 

By  board 

5 

By  law 

5,000 

By  board 

Indianapolis 

By  board 

4 

By  law 

5,5oo 

By  board 

Grand  Rapids 

By  board 

i7 

By  board 

3,750 

By  board 

St.  Paul 

By  board 

2 

By  law 

5,ooo 

By  law 

Omaha 

By  board 

38 

By  board 

5,400 

By  board 

Kansas  City 

By  board 

1 

By  board 

4,500 

By  board 

Denver* 

By  board 

1 

By  board 

5,000 

By  board 

Seattle 

By  board 

38 

By  law 

7,5oo 

By  board 

Spokane 

By  board 

38 

By  board 

4,5oo 

By  board 

Portland 

By  board 

1 

By  board 

4,5oo 

By  board 

Oakland 

By  board 

4 

By  law 

4,000 

By  board 

*  Data  not  confirmed  by  the  superintendent 

1  First  appointment,  one  year;  second,  five  years. 

2  First  appointment,  one  year;  second,  during  good  behavior 

(Balance  of  notes  on  of 


pposite  page) 


150     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 
(c)  Third  Class  Cities 


Tenure 

Salary 

Cities 

How  Chosen 

Term  in 
Years 

How 
Fixed 

Amount 

How 
Fixed 

Portland 

By  board 

I 

By  law 

$2,600 

By  board 

Manchester 

By  board 

2 

By  charter 

3,000 

By  board 

Burlington 

By  board 

I 

By  charter 

2,400 

By  board 

Wilmington 

By  board 

2 

By  rules 

3,000 

By  board 

Wheeling 

By  board 

2 

By  board 

3,000 

By  board 

Charlotte 

By  board 

I 

By  law 

2,I001 

By  board 

Charleston 

By  board 

4 

By  rules 

2,500 

By  board 

Jacksonville 

Elected  by 
people 

4 

Bylaw 

3,600  2 

Bylaw 

Meridian 

By  board 

I 

By  board 

2,875 

By  board 

San  Antonio  * 

(No  data) 

2 

(No  data) 

2,250 

(No  data) 

Little  Rock 

By  board 

I 

By  rules 

3,000 

By  rules 

Oklahoma 

By  board 

3 

By  board 

3,600 

By  board 

Des  Moines 

By  board 

I 

(No  data) 

4,000 

By  board 

Fargo 

By  board 

i 

By  board 

3,250 

By  board 

Sioux  Falls 

By  board 

i 

By  rules 

3,000 

By  board 

Kansas  City 

By  board 

i3 

By  rules 

3,500 

By  board 

Butte 

By  board 

3 

By  law 

4,000 

By  board 

Cheyenne 

By  board 

i 

By  board 

2,500 

By  board 

Albuquerque 

By  board 

i 

By  rules 

2,250 

By  board 

Tucson 

By  board 

2 

By  law 

3,000 

By  board 

Salt  Lake 

By  board 

2 

By  law 

4,800 

By  board 

Reno 

By  board 

44 

By  board 

3,000 

By  board 

Boise 

By  board 

35 

By  board 

4,000 

By  board 

powers,  except  when  prescribed  by  state  law,  are  denned 
by  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  board.  The  official 
responsibility  of  the  superintendent  is  to  the  board  of  edu- 

*  Data  not  confirmed  by  the  superintendent. 

1  In  addition  a  residence  is  furnished  the  superintendent. 

2  Minimum  by  law;  board  may  pay  more. 

3  Law  permits  board  to  elect  for  one  or  two  years. 

4  Law  permits  board  to  elect  for  four  years  after  one  term. 
6  One  year  first  appointment;  three  years  second. 


TEE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS      151 

cation,  which  elects  him  to  office  and  which  also  largely 
defines  his  duties  and  powers. 


The  Superintendent's  Term  of  Office 

The  length  of  the  term  of  office  of  the  superintendent 
shows  the  general  stability  of  his  position.  If  his  term  of 
office  is  too  short  (say  one  year),  in  our  large  cities  and  to  a 
somewhat  lesser  extent  in  all  cities  he  can  scarcely  begin 
his  work  before  he  must  be  re-elected.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  his  term  of  office  is  of  reasonable  length  (say  from  three 
to  five  years),  and  if  he  is  protected  in  serving  that  term  by 
the  state  law,  then  the  conditions  make  it  possible  for  him 
to  assume  that  educational  leadership  in  city  affairs  which 
the  public  is  coming  more  and  more  to  expect  of  him. 

It  can  be  assumed  that  innovations  in  the  schools  will 
bring  more  or  less  adverse  criticism  on  the  superintendent. 
Obviously  the  more  progressive  and  active  a  superintendent 
is,  the  more  likely  he  is  to  bring  such  criticism  on  himself. 
Every  school  man  knows  that  if  the  superintendent  ignores 
this  criticism  or  is  oblivious  to  it,  he  stands  a  good  chance 
of  not  being  re-elected.  The  most  progressive  and  efficient 
superintendents  are  likely  to  create  so  much  opposition 
in  the  course  of  a  few  terms  of  service  that  they  cannot  be 
re-elected.  The  best  superintendents  may  literally  work 
themselves  out  of  a  position  through  the  performance  of 
the  most  efficient  service. 

Unfortunately  for  the  schools,  superintendents  generally 
have  found  it  by  far  the  safer  policy  for  them  to  proceed 
cautiously  in  the  introduction  of  progressive  ideas  into  the 
school  system.  By  following  this  policy  their  positions  are 
more  secure,  and  the  public  complacently  accepts  the  lack 
of  legitimate  criticism  as  an  indication  of  marked  success. 
But  the  pursuance  of  this  policy  by  the  superintendent 


152      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

tends  to  keep  the  schools  in  a  static  and  non-progressive 
condition.  Progress  is  made  only  by  the  adoption  of  prom- 
ising innovations  and  the  retention  of  those  which  are  good. 
In  reality  the  adoption  of  this  policy  by  a  superintendent, 
or  the  adoption  of  a  progressive  policy,  marks  the  difference 
between  keeping  the  schools  running  and  keeping  them 
running  at  their  greatest  possible  efficiency. 

It  is  altogether  likely  that  this  conservatism,  largely 
forced  on  the  superintendent  by  the  conditions  under  which 
he  works,  has  been  the  most  potent  single  factor  in  keeping 
our  practice  in  educational  affairs  so  far  behind  our  theory. 
School  administrators  are  kept  from  putting  many  of  their 
promising  theories  to  work  in  the  school  system,  partly 
because  of  the  insecurity  of  their  positions  and  partly  be- 
cause of  their  subordination  to  the  leadership  of  the  board  of 
education.  Changes  are  already  taking  place  which  look 
toward  the  enlargement  of  the  powers  and  responsibilities 
of  the  superintendent.  There  is  need  also  of  increasing  the 
stability  of  the  superintendent's  position  by  increasing  the 
length  of  term  for  which  he  is  elected  and  by  fixing  that 
term  by  law. 

As  has  been  shown,  the  board  of  education  selects  the 
superintendent  of  schools  in  most  cities.  But  so  long  as 
his  term  of  office  also  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  board, 
the  superintendent  is  placed  in  a  position  of  subordination 
in  which  it  is  extremely  difficult  for  him  to  adopt  any  other 
attitude  than  one  of  conservatism.  In  most  cases  this  means 
that  he  fails  to  make  himself  the  educational  leader  of  his 
city;  he  either  shares  that  leadership  with  the  lay  board  or 
else  is  willing  to  let  the  board  march  in  the  front  ranks  while 
he  takes  a  position  well  back  in  the  procession.  The 
chances  of  the  possibility  and  probability  of  the  superin- 
tendent assuming  the  desirable  position  of  educational 
leader  in  his  city  will  be  materially  increased  when  his  term 


THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS      1 53 

of  office  is  of  reasonable  length  (say  from  three  to  five  years), 
and  when  that  term  is  fixed  by  state  law  so  that  he  cannot 
be  deposed  by  the  board  for  inconsequential  acts  or  for 
assuming  that  leadership  which  he  ought  to  assume. 
Human  nature  must  be  considered  as  it  is,  and  the  super- 
intendent ought  not  to  be  and  cannot  be  expected  to  be 
active  and  aggressive  in  his  direction  of  educational  affairs 
when  by  that  very  activity  and  aggressiveness  he  is  working 
himself  out  of  a  position.  The  superintendent  must  be 
protected  in  the  exercise  of  the  leadership  which  we  expect 
of  him. 

(i)  THE  LENGTH  OF  THE  TERM  OF  OFFICE 

The  following  table  shows  by  classes  of  cities  the  length 
of  the  superintendent's  term  of  office  and  the  number  of 
cities  under  each  term. 


Term 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Indef- 
inite 

Average  * 

18  first  class  cities 
31 2  second  class  cities 
23  third  class  cities 

2 
II 
II 

I 

2 

6 

4 
6 

3 

6 

7 
3 

1 

3 
0 

2 
O 
O 

2 
2 
O 

3.56  years 
2.62     " 
1.91     " 

The  preceding  table  and  the  accompanying  graphs  on 
page  154  make  it  clear  that  there  is  a  direct  relationship 
between  the  size  of  city  and  the  length  of  term  of  office  of 
the  superintendent  of  schools.  This  is  shown  by  the  aver- 
age term,  the  median,  and  the  mode  in  the  distributions 
for  the  three  classes  of  cities.  The  following  tabulation 
brings  these  facts  into  prominence. 

1  Average  does  not  include  those  cities  which  have  indefinite  terms. 
a  Lowell  missing. 


1 54     TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


Average  Term 

Median 

Mode 

First  class  cities 

Second  class  cities 

Third  class  cities 

3.56  years 
2.62     " 
1.91     " 

4 
3 
2 

4 

1 
1 

Terms  of  Superintendents 


Terms 


z 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Indefinite 

6 

18  First  Class 
Cities 

5 
4 
3 

Median,  4  yrs. 
Mode,     4  yrs. 

2 

1 

II 

31  Second  Class 

IO 

Cities 

9 

Median,  3  yrs. 

8 

Mode,     1  yr. 

7 

• 

6 

5 

4 
3 

2 

1 

11 

23  Third  Class 

10 

Cities 

9 

Median,  2  yrs. 

8 

Mode,     1  yr. 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

24 
23 

22 
21 

20 

19 

18 

17 
16 

15 
14 
13 
12 
II 
IO 

9 
8 
7 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
1 


Terms         Indefinite 
I234S67 

Total,  72  Cities 

Median,  3  yrs. 
Mode,     1  yr. 


In  each  case  the  length  of  term  decreases  as  one  passes 
from  the  larger  to  the  smaller  cities.  For  example,  the 
average  term  in  first  class  cities  is  3.56  years,  in  second 


TEE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS     1 55 

class  cities  it  is  2.62  years,  and  in  third  class  cities  it  is 
1. 9 1  years. 

Further,  the  longest  fixed  term  of  the  superintendent 
varies  with  the  size  of  the  city.  In  the  first  class  cities 
the  longest  term  is  six  years,  in  second  class  cities  it 
is  five  years,  and  in  third  class  cities  it  is  four  years. 
The  shortest  term  is  uniformly  one  year  in  all  classes 
of  cities. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  also  that  two  cities  among  the 
first  class  and  two  among  the  second  class  cities  select  super- 
intendents for  indefinite  terms,  i.e.,  during  the  period  of 
satisfactory  service. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  cities  like  Chicago  and 
Philadelphia  should  continue  to  appoint  superintendents 
for  one  year  terms.  Perhaps  the  wonder  really  is  that  com- 
petent superintendents  are  willing  to  assume  the  responsi- 
bilities of  the  position  under  such  conditions.  If  a  six  year 
term  is  good  for  New  York  City  and  for  Boston,  and  also 
if  at  least  a  three  or  four  year  term  is  found  desirable  in 
most  other  cities,  why  should  Chicago  and  Philadelphia 
subject  a  superintendent  to  an  annual  re-election?  What 
other  reason  can  there  be  than  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the 
board  of  education  to  remind  the  superintendent  of  schools 
constantly  of  his  subordination  to  and  dependency  on  the 
board?  Obviously  this  prevents  the  superintendent  from 
becoming  the  real  educational  leader  that  he  should  be, 
and  is  an  attempt  to  establish  the  board  as  the  educational 
leader,  a  role  which  the  board  is  not  qualified  to  assume  and 
which  it  is,  therefore,  undesirable  for  it  to  attempt  to 
assume. 

(2)   HOW  THE  TERM  OF   OFFICE  IS  FIXED 

Obviously,  if  the  term  of  office  of  the  superintendent  is 
fixed  by  law,  his  position  is  more  secure  than  if  it  is  fixed 


156     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

by  the  rules  of  the  board  or  left  to  the  discretion  of  the 
board.  The  following  tabulations  show  how  the  term  is 
fixed  in  the  different  classes  of  cities.  In  the  tabulation 
"by  law"  means,  of  course,  by  state  law.  "By  charter" 
means  by  the  city  charter  granted  to  a  city  for  its  local 
government.  "By  rules"  means  that  the  board  has  defined 
in  its  rules  and  regulations  the  term  of  office  of  the  super- 
intendent. "By  board"  means  that  the  term  is  left  to  the 
discretion  of  the  board  and  is  fixed  when  the  board  elects  a 
superintendent. 


Tabulation  Showing  how  the  Superintendent's  Term  of  Office  is 

Fixed 


18  first  class  cities 


By  law 
By  charter 
By  board 


7  cities 

1  city 

10  cities 


30  second  class  cities 


By  law 
By  charter 
By  rules 
:  By  board 


12  cities 

2     " 

5     " 
11     " 


21  third  class  cities 


By  law 
By  charter 
By  rules 
By  board 


6  cities 
2     " 

6  " 

7  " 


Total  69  cities 


Summary 


Bylaw 
By  charter 
By  rules 
By  board 


25  cities 

5  " 
11  " 
28     " 


36.2  per  cent 
7-3       " 
15.9       " 
40.6       " 


The  instability  of  the  position  of  the  superintendent  is 
strikingly  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  term  is  largely  left 
to  the  discretion  of  the  board.  A  change  in  the  member- 
ship of  the  board  or  any  local  passing  storm  of  protest  may 
altogether  too  easily  terminate  his  services.    It  is  slightly 


THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS     1 57 

better  that  the  term  should  be  fixed  by  the  rules,  because 
it  takes  more  than  a  majority  vote  to  set  aside  the  rules. 

The  most  stable  term  is  that  denned  by  the  city  charter 
or  by  the  state  law,  in  which  cases  the  length  of  term  is 
beyond  the  interference  of  the  local  board.  The  length  of 
term  of  office  is  not  properly  a  local  matter,  but  a  matter  of 
importance  to  the  state.  Hence,  the  state  is  justified  in 
fixing  the  length  of  that  term  in  such  a  way  as  to  protect 
the  superintendent  in  the  discharge  of  his  proper  functions, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  conserve  the  state's  interests  in 
education.  However,  there  are  only  thirty  cities  (about 
43  per  cent)  of  those  under  consideration  in  which  the 
term  is  fixed  by  law  or  by  the  city  charter. 

Before  the  superintendent  will  be  able  to  bring  to  his 
position  the  highest  degree  of  efficiency,  he  must  be  allowed 
a  reasonable  term  of  office  during  which  he  may  make  such 
readjustments  in  educational  administration  as  he  deems 
desirable.  His  term  of  office  must  be  so  protected  by  law 
that  the  first  storm  of  popular  disfavor  which  always  or 
usually  accompanies  changes  or  innovations  will  not  de- 
prive him  of  office  before  the  results  of  such  innovations 
become  evident.  Hence,  the  term  of  office  of  the  super- 
intendent of  schools  should  be  fixed  by  state  law.  As  in 
the  case  of  several  cities  now,  his  first  term  may  well  be  a 
short  one  of  one  or  two  years,  depending  on  the  size  of  the 
city,  after  which  his  term  should  be  from  four  to  six  years. 

The  Superintendent's  Salary 
(i)  the  amount  of  the  superintendent's  salary 

One  index  of  the  public's  conception  of  the  importance 
of  the  office  of  superintendent  of  schools  is  the  amount  of 
salary  it  is  willing  to  pay  the  person  who  holds  that  office. 

The  following  graphs  show,  by  classes  of  cities,  the  range  in 
salary  and  the  number  of  cities  paying  the  different  salaries. 


158      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


Salaries  of  Superintendents 


m  in   t- 


'O  c  «  >o  s  s  s  n  op  op  00  00*  o  o  o  a  H 


(*)  p)  *0  <0  ^ 


0>OQ«^0>OQ>^0>OQ«00 

*?  ^  1"  10  10  10  «  €  o*  id  rCtCtC 


to  O  >o  O  >o  O  >o 

00  00  00  d   o*>  &  & 


6 

5 

4 

3 
2 

1 

n 

lln 

,  n  n  n 

n 

1 

J  First  Class  Cities. 

Average  Salary,  $7,222;  Median,  $6,376;  Mode,  $5,876. 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 
2 

1 

n  r 

1 
1 

n      n      n 

31  Second  Class  Cities. 

Average  Salary,  $4,596;  Median,  $4,376;  Mode,  $4,876. 


10 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

Itl- 

L±f 

n 

23  Third  Class  Cities. 

Average  Salary,  $3,096;  Median,  $2,876;  Mode,  $2,876. 

Note.  —  The  averages  in  the  above  cases  were  figured  from  the  exact  salaries  given  in 
the  table  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter. 


The  following  table  shows  some  interesting  facts  ob- 
tained from  the  previous  tables  and  graphs. 


Lowest 
Salary 

Highest 
Salary 

Average 
Salary 

Median 
Salary 

Mode 
Salary 

First  class  cities 
Second  class  cities 
Third  class  cities 

$4,000 
3,000 
2,IOO 

$10,000 
7,500 
4,800 

$7,222 
4,596 
3,096 

$6,376 
4,376 
2,876 

$5,876 
4,876 
2,876 

THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS      1 59 

In  the  matter  of  salary  also,  there  is  a  direct  relationship 
to  the  size  of  the  city.  In  each  of  the  columns  of  figures  on 
the  preceding  page  the  salary  decreases  from  the  larger  to 
the  smaller  cities.  However,  the  lowest  salary  paid  among 
first  class  cities  is  only  about  one-half  as  large  as  the  highest 
salary  paid  among  second  class  cities.  The  same  is  true  in 
comparing  the  lowest  salary  among  second  class  cities  with 
the  highest  salary  among  third  class  cities. 

The  salaries  of  superintendents  are  beginning  to  reach 
a  more  satisfactory  level.  It  may  be  confidently  expected 
that,  as  men  prepare  themselves  better  for  the  important 
responsibilities  of  the  superintendent's  position,  the  public 
will  compensate  them  in  proportion  to  what  such  service  is 
worth. 


(2)   HOW  THE   SUPERINTENDENT'S   SALARY  IS  FIXED 

The  method  of  fixing  salaries  of  superintendents  is  shown 
by  the  following  tabulations. 


18  first  class  cities 


By  law  2  cities 

By  city  council  1  city 

By  board  of  education  is  cities 


31  second  class  cities 


22  third  class  cities 


By  law  4  cities 

By  board  of  est.  and  app.  1  city 

By  board  of  education  26  cities 

By  law  1  city 

By  rules  1    " 

By  board  20  cities 


71  cities 


Summary 

By  law 

By  board 

By  rules 

By  other  methods 


7  cities 
61     " 

1  city 

2  cities 


The  salary  of  the  superintendent  is  largely  a  local  and 
not  a  state  matter.    The  city  must  pay  the  salary,  and  each 


160     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

city  is  entitled  to  as  efficient  a  superintendent  as  it  is  will- 
ing to  engage  and  pay.  Hence,  the  amount  of  the  salary  is 
properly  fixed,  not  by  state  law,  but  by  the  local  board  of 
education.  Further,  when  the  amount  of  salary  is  left  to 
the  board,  it  is  possible  to  increase  the  salary  and  thus  re- 
tain a  superintendent  when  his  election  by  another  city  is 
under  consideration.  This  is  practically  impossible  if  the 
salary  is  fixed  by  law,  because  to  change  the  law  is  a  slow 
process  and  could  not  be  done  in  time  to  retain  such  a  super- 
intendent. On  the  other  hand,  if  the  board  is  allowed  com- 
plete freedom  in  fixing  the  superintendent's  salary,  it  is 
in  a  position  to  adjust  the  amount  of  salary  to  meet  any 
circumstances. 

Changes  in  the  Length  of  the  Superintendent's  Term 
or  Office  and  his  Salary 

A  comparison  between  the  terms  of  office  in  19 13  and  in 
1893  in  representative  cities  will  show  whether  the  term  of 
office  is  increasing  or  decreasing  in  length.  This  comparison 
will  be  made  between  data  which  I  have  collected  for  19 13 l 
and  data  published  by  Draper  for  the  year  1893.2 

Draper  does  not  give  the  salaries  of  superintendents. 
Neither  does  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Education 
publish  salaries  before  1907.  Therefore,  the  comparison 
of  salaries  will  be  made  between  those  of  19 13  and  those  of 
1907,  a  period  of  only  six  years. 

The  complete  data  on  terms  and  salaries  of  the  super- 
intendents are  given  in  the  following  table. 

1  These  data  have  been  confirmed  by  the  superintendents  concerned. 

2  Educational  Review,  vol.  vi,  pp.  1-16. 


THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS     161 


Term  in  Years 

Salary 

1893 

1913 

1907  ■ 

1913 

New  York 

2 

1  « 

Brooklyn 

3 

$10,000 

$10,000 

Chicago 

I 

1 

10,000 

10,000 

Philadelphia 

I 

1 

7,500 

9,000 

St.  Louis 

3 

4 

7,000 

8,000 

Boston 

2 

6 

6,000 

10,000 

Baltimore 

4 

Indefinite 

5,000 

5,000 

San  Francisco 

4 

4      . 

4,000 

4,000 

Cincinnati 

2 

2 

6,000 

10,000 

Cleveland 

Unlimited 

3 

6,000 

6,000 

Buffalo 

3 

4 

5,000 

7,5O0 

New  Orleans 

4 

4 

4,000  2 

5,000 

Pittsburgh 

3 

l  * 

6,000 

Allegheny 

3 

9,000 

Washington 

Unlimited 

3 

5,000 

6,000 

Detroit 

3 

3 

6,000 

6,000 

Milwaukee 

2 

3 

6,000 

6,000 

Newark 

1 

Indefinite 

S,SOO  2 

7,000 

Minneapolis 

3 

5 

5,250 

5,5O0 

Jersey  City 

3 

Indefinite 

6,000 

6,500 

Louisville 

3 

1 

5,000 

5,000 

Omaha 

3 

3 

5,000 

5,400 

Rochester 

2 

4 

5,000 

5,000 

St.  Paul 

2 

2 

4,500 

5,000 

Kansas  City 

1 

1 

4,5O0 

4,500 

Providence 

1 

1 

5,000 

5,000 

Denver 

Unlimited 

1 

5,000 

5,000 

Indianapolis 

1 

4 

5,000 

5,500 

Total 

60 

70 

$149,250 

$170,900 

Average 

2.4 

3 -04 

5,740 

6,573 

(i)    CHANGES    IN    THE    LENGTH    OF    THE    SUPERINTENDENT'S 
TERM  OF  OFFICE 

The  graphs  on  the  following  page  are  based  on  the  infor- 
mation given  in  the  preceding  table  and  show  the  length  of 
term  of  the  superintendents  in  1893  and  in  19 13. 

1  Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  1907,  vol.  i. 
8  For  1908. 


1 62 


THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Changes  in  the  Length  of  Term  of  the  Superintendents 
Years 


3    4    5    6    7 


1893 


Unlimited 

25  Cities  (3  Unlimited  omitted) 

Average 2.4  yrs. 

Median 3.      " 

Mode 3.      " 


1013 


23  Cities  (3  Indefinite  omitted) 

Average 3.04  yrs. 

Median 3.5      " 

Mode 4.0     " 

Indefinite 


The  following  facts  are  worthy  of  special  notice: 

(1)  In  no  city  in  1893  was  there  a  superintendent  with  a 
fixed  term  of  more  than  four  years;  in  19 13  there  was  one 
with  a  term  of  five  years  and  two  with  terms  of  six  years 
each. 

(2)  The  average  length  of  term  of  the  superintendent 
increased  from  2.4  years  in  1893  to  3.04  years  in  1913. 

(3)  There  were  nine  cases  of  increase  in  length  of  term 
of  the  superintendent,  ten  cases  of  no  change,  and  one  case 
of  decrease  in  the  twenty  year  period. 

The  one  decrease  is  in  Louisville.  The  first  appointment 
of  a  superintendent  is  for  a  term  of  one  year,  and  after  that 
the  law  fixes  the  term  at  four  years.  In  19 14,  therefore, 
the  term  would  be  for  four  years. 


THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS      163 

If  one  limits  the  comparison  of  terms  to  the  eighteen 
first  class  cities,  the  average  increase  in  length  of  term 
during  the  twenty  year  period  is  just  one  year. 


(2)    CHANGES   IN   THE   AMOUNT   OF    THE    SUPERINTENDENT'S 

SALARY 

The  following  graphs  are  based  on  the  information  given  in 
the  table  on  page  161  and  show  the  amount  of  the  annual 
salary  of  superintendents  in  1907  and  19 13. 


Changes  in  Amount  of  Salary  of  Superintendents 


1907 


1913 


10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 
3 

2 

1 


Salary 

8   8   8 


8   8   8 


T^-TflOlOVOv©       N      N    00      00        OO^O 


26  Cities 

Average..  $5,740 

Median  . .  5,250 

Mode 5,000 


26  Cities 
Average . .  $6,573 
Median  . .     6,000 
Mode 5,000 


I 

1  One  at  $5,250  included. 

2  "    "     5,400 


164      TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

The  following  important  facts  are  worthy  of  special 
notice: 

(1)  The  average  salary  has  increased  from  $5,740  in 
1907  to  $6,573  m  IQI3>  or  an  average  increase  of  over  $833 
among  all  cities  in  six  years. 

(2)  There  have  been  fourteen  cases  of  an  increase  in 
the  annual  salary,  twelve  cases  of  no  change,  and  no  cases 
of  a  decrease. 

Among  the  cities  giving  increases  in  salaries,  the  amount 
of  the  average  increase  during  the  six  year  period  is  $1,546. 
This  striking  average  increase  is  calculated  from  the  fol- 
lowing tabulation,  which  shows  the  amount  of  increase  in 
each  case. 

2  cities  increased  salaries  $4,000  3  cities  increased  salaries  $4,000 

1  city          "              "        3,000  3     "           "              "           500 

1  "             "              "        2,500  1  city          "              "          400 

2  cities        "              "        1,500  1  "             "              *           250 

Changing  of  the  Superintendents 

One  of  the  striking  facts  pertaining  to  the  office  of  su- 
perintendent of  schools  is  the  constant  shifting  from  one 
position  to  another  of  the  men  who  hold  the  office.  This 
changing  is  due  to  two  main  causes:  (1)  the  lack  of  a 
tenure  of  reasonable  length  in  many  cities,  which  makes  it 
convenient  for  a  board  to  change  superintendents  at  fre- 
quent intervals;  and  (2)  the  rapidly  rising  salaries,  which 
tempt  superintendents  to  leave  one  place  to  accept  a  higher 
salary  in  another. 

Out  of  the  seventy-three  cities  we  are  studying,  twenty- 
one  cities  (28.8  per  cent)  had  the  same  superintendent  in  1913 
that  they  had  in  1907.  Out  of  the  twenty-six  largest  cities 
in  the  United  States  in  1893,  only  seven  cities  (26.9  per 
cent)  had  the  same  superintendent  in  19 13  that  they  had 
in  1907. 


THE  CITY  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS      165 

Summary  of  Findings 
We  find  that: 

(1)  The  superintendent,  with  few  exceptions,  is  chosen 
by  the  board  of  education. 

(2)  The  term  of  office  of  the  superintendent  is  compara- 
tively short,  but  is  increasing  in  length. 

(3)  The  term  is  fixed  in  about  55  per  cent  of  the  cases  by 
the  board  and  in  about  45  per  cent  of  the  cases  by  law. 

(4)  The  salary  of  the  superintendent  is  increasing  rapidly 
and  is  beginning  to  reach  a  reasonable  level. 

(5)  The  salary  is  fixed  largely  by  the  board  of  education. 

(6)  Those  who  hold  the  office  of  superintendent  change 
positions  frequently. 


PART   IV 
CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 


CHAPTER  IX 

SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  —  A  CONSTRUCTIVE  PLAN 
•       FOR  APPOINTING  TEACHERS 

It  is  the  hope  of  the  writer  that  the  present  methods 
of  appointing  teachers  in  the  various  cities  have  been  so 
presented,  interpreted,  and  characterized  that  the  better 
methods  may  eventually  be  substituted  for  the  archaic 
methods  now  in  use  in  some  of  our  city  school  systems. 
In  order  that  the  essential  results  of  this  study  may  be 
readily  accessible,  I  shall  present  in  this  final  chapter  a 
condensed  summary  of  the  entire  monograph,  together  with 
a  constructive  plan  for  appointing  teachers.  This  plan  is 
not  theoretical,  but  practical,  inasmuch  as  it  includes  no 
feature  that  is  not  found  in  actual  practice  in  some  city 
included  in  the  foregoing  study.  It  is  purposely  also  a 
progressive  plan,  because  it  embodies  the  best  features  that 
have  been  found  in  any  school  system. 

To  illustrate:  if  one  feature  of  the  method  of  appointing 
teachers  in  one  city  is  considered  superior  to  that  feature 
in  any  other  city,  it  is  incorporated  in  the  constructive  plan 
herein  presented.  If  another  feature  of  a  different  system 
is  considered  better  than  the  corresponding  feature  in  any 
other  system,  that  feature  is  likewise  made  a  part  of  the 
plan.  Thus  I  have  built  up  a  complete  plan  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  teachers. 

In  so  far  as  the  practice  in  any  city  deviates  from  the  pro- 
cedure recommended  in  this  plan,  the  reader  may  rightly 
conclude  that  the  practice  is  just  to  that  extent  adversely 

criticised.     On  the  contrary,  just  to  the  extent  that  any 

169 


170      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

city's  method  of  appointing  teachers  conforms  to  this  con- 
structive plan,  the  reader  may  rightly  conclude  that  just 
to  that  extent  it  is  approved. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  overlooking  the  fact 
that  there  may  be  danger  in  wrenching  one  particular 
feature  of  a  school  system  from  its  setting  in  the  system 
and  from  its  manifold  relationships.  To  consider  a  single 
administrative  function  may  lead  to  the  commending  of  a 
worthy  feature  of  a  generally  bad  school  system,  or  it  may 
lead  to  condemning  a  bad  feature  of  a  school  system  in 
other  respects  commendable.  The  appointment  of  teach- 
ers, however,  is  an  administrative  procedure  which  is  largely 
independent  of  other  administrative  activities  of  the  school 
officials.  Further,  I  have  considered  the  whole  process  of 
appointing  teachers  in  each  city  as  a  unit,  and  have  consid- 
ered to  some  extent  the  other  administrative  factors  related 
directly  to  the  matter  of  appointment. 

In  view  of  these  considerations  it  seems  fair  to  segregate 
this  one  administrative  function  from  the  others  and  to 
characterize  the  process  of  appointing  teachers  as  good  or 
bad,  as  the  facts  warrant.  However,  in  commending  or 
condemning  any  feature  of  the  appointive  process  in  a 
given  city,  I  am  not  commending  or  condemning  that  school 
system  as  a  whole.  My  criticisms  apply  only  to  the  fea- 
ture of  the  system  under  special  consideration. 

Inasmuch  as  any  method  of  appointing  teachers  depends 
for  its  operation  on,  and  is  conditioned  by,  the  kind  of  ad- 
ministrative agencies  established,  it  is  desirable  to  reverse 
the  order  of  treatment  in  this  final  chapter  and  to  consider 
first  the  agencies  which  do  the  appointing,  namely,  the 
board  of  education  and  the  superintendent,  and  then  to 
consider  the  methods  of  making  the  appointments. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  board  of  education 
is  an  older  and  more  fundamental  institution  than  the  city 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  171 

superintendent  of  schools.  Hence,  the  board's  functions, 
responsibilities,  and  powers  have  been  more  completely 
worked  out  and  denned  than  have  those  of  the  superin- 
tendent. Hence,  also,  while  it  is  possible  and  fairly  easy 
to  define  rather  clearly  a  typical  board  of  education  (which 
is  in  most  respects  a  satisfactory  board),  the  office  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools  cannot  be  so  easily  characterized. 
Consequently,  in  the  characterization  of  the  superintendent, 
I  shall  have  to  assume  what  the  present  tendencies  indicate 
to  a  greater  extent  than  I  have  had  to  in  the  case  of  the 
board. 

Concerning  the  City  Board  of  Education 

1.  The  city  board  of  education  is  the  local  administrative 
agency  in  the  city  charged  by  the  state  with  the  responsi- 
bility of  providing  education  for  the  children  of  the  city. 
The  city  board  is  a  state  agency  for  the  discharge  of  a  state  )_- 
function.  The  state  defines,  in  general  laws  and  charter 
provisions,  the  larger  functions  of  the  board  of  education, 

or  delegates  to  the  board  general  authority  over  education. 
The  board  may  adopt  any  administrative  regulations  not 
inconsistent  with  the  established  laws. 

2.  There  are  small  boards  and  large  boards  of  educa- 
tion in  cities  of  all  sizes  and  in  all  sections  of  the  country. 
Although  there  are  some  large  boards  in  the  cities  under  our 
consideration,  the  average  size  is  less  than  ten  members, 
the  median  size  is  seven  members,  and  the  most  common  V~ 
size  is  five  members.  Almost  70  per  cent  of  the  cities  under  . 
our  consideration  have  boards  of  less  than  ten  members. 

3.  During  the  past  twenty  years,  in  twenty-seven  of 
the  largest  cities  studied,  the  average  size  of  the  board  of 
education  has  been  reduced  from  twenty-two  members  to 
eleven  members.  The  decrease  in  size  of  boards  has  been, 
in  most  cases,  from  boards  of  twenty  or  more  to  boards  of 


172      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

l  nine  or  less.     The  number  of  members  to  which  boards 
~\were  most  commonly  reduced  was  five.    During  the  past 
twenty  years  not  a  single  one  of  the  twenty-seven  cities 
has  changed  from  a  small  board  to  a  large  board. 

4.  The  length  of  term  of  office  of  board  members  ranges 
/  from  two  to  six  years,  with  an  average  term  of  a  little  less 

"  ^  than  four  years.  In  the  first  class  cities  the  most  common 
term  is  six  years;  in  the  second  class  cities  the  tendency 
is  decidedly  in  favor  of  a  term  of  three  or  four  years;  and 
in  third  class  cities  the  variation  is  largely  from  two  to  four 
years.    As  a  rule,  the  smaller  the  city  the  shorter  the  term 

—L  of  office  of  school  board  members. 

5.  During  the  past  twenty  years  the  term  of  office  of  the 
board  members  has  changed  from  an  average  of  2.93  years 

,  in  1893  to  4.30  years  in  1913,  or  an  increase  of  nearly  47 
per  cent.  Among  twenty-five  cities  there  are  fifteen  cases 
of  increasing  the  term  of  office  and  only  three  cases  of  de- 
creasing it.  The  most  common  increases  have  been  from 
two  or  three  year  terms  to  four  or  six  year  terms. 
/  6.  In  most  cases  members  of  the  board  serve  without 
I  financial  compensation.  In  only  nine  out  of  the  seventy- 
one  cities  are  members  paid  for  their  services.  Com- 
pensation varies  from  $4  per  meeting  to  $1,200  per  year  for 
members  who  do  not  give  all  of  their  time  to  educational 
service.  In  San  Francisco,  members  of  the  board  devote 
all  their  time  to  this  office  and  are  paid  $3,000  per  year. 
Thus,  it  is  seen  that  most  cities  do  not  compensate  school 
board  members,  and  that  among  the  nine  cities  that  do, 
the  compensation  varies  greatly  in  amount.  Except  in 
San  Francisco  and  Rochester,  the  compensation  is  small. 

7.  The  most  common  methods  of  selecting  members  of 
the  board  of  education  are  appointment  by  the  mayor  and 
election  by  the  people.  The  mayor  appoints  board  mem- 
bers in  only  ten  cities,  as  compared  with  fifty-two  cities  in 


f 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  173 

which  the  people  elect  members.  Appointment  by  the  ) 
mayor  is  confined  to  the  larger  cities.  Members  are  elected 
from  the  city  at  large  in  forty-eight  cities,  as  compared  with 
fourteen  cities  in  which  they  are  selected  from  wards  or 
districts  as  such.  The  courts,  the  city  council,  and  the  city 
commissioners  select  the  school  board  members  in  a  few 
cities. 

8.  Comparatively  few  changes  have  taken  place  in  the 
methods  of  selecting  school  board  members  during  the  past 
twenty  years  in  the  twenty-seven  largest  cities.  Those 
changes  have  tended  to  reduce  the  number  of  methods  to/ 
two,  namely,  appointment  by  the  mayor  and  election  by 
the  people.  In  1893  there  were  ten  distinct  methods  of 
selecting  board  members,  namely,  election  by  the  people, 
by  wards  or  at  large,  appointment  by  the  mayor,  from 
wards  or  at  large,  by  mayor  and  city  council,  by  the  city 
council,  by  the  court,  by  city  commissioners,  by  district 
boards  of  education,  and  by  the  state  board  of  education. 
By  19 13  the  number  of  methods  had  been  reduced  to  six, 
namely,  election  by  the  people,  by  wards  or  at  large,  ap- 
pointment by  the  mayor,  by  boroughs  or  at  large,  by  the 
mayor  and  city  council,  and  by  the  court.  In  these  twenty- 
seven  cities  selection  of  members  from  wards  or  districts 
has  been  almost  entirely  displaced  by  selection  from  the 
city  at  large. 

9.  In  most  of  the  cities  members  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion are  laymen  who  are  specifically  selected  to  serve  on 
that  board;  only  four  of  the  cities  have  ex-ofncio  members. ) 
Members  are  required  to  be  residents  of  the  city  (if  selected 
from  the  city  at  large,  and  of  a  district  or  ward  if  selected 
by  that  method)  from  a  period  of  a  few  months  to  five  years, 
with  three  years  the  most  usual  time.  They  are  required 
to  be  twenty-one  years  of  age  or  over,  and  in  some  cases 
at  least  thirty  years  of  age.    In  several  cities  the  law  pre- 


( 


( 


174      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

vents  members  of  the  board  from  holding  any  other  office. 
Women  are  eligible  to  membership  on  the  board  in  all  cities 
where  they  have  the  right  to  vote  for  school  board  members. 

10.  Boards  of  education  usually  organize  standing  com- 
mittees. The  number  of  such  committees  varies  from  none 
in  six  cities  to  twenty-seven  in  one  city.  Some  of  the  smaller 
boards  do  not  have  standing  committees.  The  average 
number  of  committees  for  all  cities  is  six.  Standing  com- 
mittees most  often  are  made  up  of  three  members,  although 
there  are  committees  of  fifteen  members.  The  average  size 
of  all  committees  in  the  sixty-three  cities  is  less  than  four 
members.  The  committee  on  teachers  is  slightly  larger 
than  the  average  committee  of  the  board.  In  over  80  per 
cent  of  the  cases  each  standing  committee  consists  of  a 
minority  of  the  board  members. 

n.  The  committee  system  of  organization  of  the  board 
is  wrong  for  the  following  reasons:  (1)  the  small  standing 
committee  is  likely  to  play  a  disproportionately  large  part 
in  the  transaction  of  the  board's  business;  (2)  the  committee 
form  of  organization  increases  materially  the  opportunities 
for  the  exercise  of  pernicious  influences;  and  (3)  the  com- 
mittee system  of  organization  violates  four  fundamental 
principles  of  effective  school  administration:  (a)  the  duties 
of  standing  committees  of  the  board  cannot  be  so  defined 
that  overlapping  of  authority  is  avoided;  (b)  therefore, 
the  responsibility  of  each  committee  cannot  be  adequately 
fixed;  (c)  hence,  the  accountability  of  each  committee 
cannot  be  insisted  on;  and  (d)  the  committee  system  tends 
to  confuse  lay  control  with  professional  and  executive 
management. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts,  the  typical  and  satisfac- 
tory board  of  education,  toward  which  boards  have  been 
developing,  may  be  characterized  as  follows: 

The  typical  or  ideal  board  of  education  consists  of  five 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  175 

or  seven  members,  elected  by  the  people  or  appointed  by 
the  mayor  from  the  city  at  large.  Its  members  are  required 
to  be  at  least  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  are  often  required 
to  be  thirty  years  or  over.  They  are  required  to  be  bona 
fide  residents  of  the  city  for  at  least  three  years  preceding 
the  time  of  selection.  They  serve  without  financial  com- 
pensation for  a  usual  term  of  four  or  five  years.  While 
most  boards  still  organize  standing  committees,  there  is  a 
tendency  to  do  away  with  standing  committees  and  to 
delegate  to  executive  officers  of  the  board  the  discharge  of 
those  functions  which  have  customarily  been  assigned  to 
standing  committees.  There  is  also  a  well  defined  tendency 
looking  toward  the  incorporation  in  state  laws  of  the  above 
features  of  the  board  of  education,  instead  of  leaving  them 
to  the  discretion  of  the  local  board  or  to  the  community. 


Concerning  the  City  Superintendent  of  Schools 

In  view  of  the  several  summaries  at  frequent  intervals 
throughout  the  chapter  on  the  city  superintendent  of 
schools,  it  is  unnecessary  to  make  a  detailed  summary 
here.  Instead  I  shall  characterize  the  present  status  and 
probable  future  development  of  the  office  of  superintendent 
of  schools  as  shown  by  the  facts  brought  out  in  chapter 
viii. 

The  city  superintendent  of  schools  is  an  officer  of  the  city 
board  of  education.  As  such  the  superintendent's  official 
responsibility  is  to  the  board  of  education,  which  selects 
him  and  which  also  largely  defines  his  duties  and  powers. 
Except  as  provided  by  state  law,  the  superintendent  has  no 
authority  aside  from  that  conferred  on  him  by  the  board  of 
education. 

In  the  past,  because  the  board  selected  him,  fixed  his 
salary  and  length  of  term,  and  largely  defined  his  powers, 


176      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

the  tendency  has  been  to  subordinate  unduly  the  superin- 
tendent's office  to  the  board  of  education,  and  thereby  to 
make  it  impossible,  or  at  least  extremely  difficult,  for  the 
superintendent  to  develop  in  his  office  the  highest  degree  of 
efficiency. 

r  At  present  there  is  a  well  defined  tendency  to  increase  the 
importance  of  the  superintendent  by  enlarging  his  powers 
and  responsibilities.  This  tendency  is  seen  in  the  increased 
length  of  the  superintendent's  term.  The  lengthening  of 
his  term  will  abolish  the  frequent  re-elections  which  have 
been  a  menace  to  the  superintendent's  work.  Frequent 
re-elections  have  made,  or  have  tended  to  make,  the  super- 
intendent devote  a  portion  of  his  thought  and  energy  to 
"building  fences"  to  insure  his  re-election  rather  than  to 
constructive  work  in  the  school  system.  A  longer  term 
makes  that  unnecessary  because  it  gives  the  superintendent 
an  opportunity  to  introduce  such  changes  as  he  deems 
desirable,  and  to  secure  some  results  before  his  work  is 
judged,  as  it  naturally  is  and  should  be,  when  he  is  re- 
elected. With  a  term  of  reasonable  length,  the  board  can 
and  should  judge  the  success  of  a  superintendent  by  the 
results  of  his  labor. 

This  tendency  is  also  seen  in  the  fact  that  the  term  is  com- 
ing to  be  fixed  by  state  law  rather  than  by  the  local  board  of 
education,  as  in  the  past.  By  fixing  his  term  of  office  by 
law,  the  state  protects  the  superintendent  in  his  position, 
so  that  the  first  storm  of  popular  disfavor  which  always 
or  usually  accompanies  his  innovations  will  not  sweep  him 
out  of  office  before  the  results  of  such  innovations  become 
evident  or  can  be  measured.  The  fixing  of  the  length  of 
term  by  law  is  justifiable  because  education  in  the  city  is  a 
state  function,  and  because  it  is  of  importance  to  the  state 
that  the  superintendent  be  so  established  that  he  can  fill 
his  position  with  the  highest  degree  of  success. 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  177 

This  tendency  is  further  seen  in  the  increased  salary 
which  the  superintendent  is  receiving.  The  highest  salary 
is  $10,000.  The  average  salary  in  first,  second,  and  third 
class  cities  is  respectively  about  $7,000,  $4,500,  and  $3,000.  ) 
The  average  annual  salary  in  twenty-six  representative 
cities  has  increased  $833  during  the  past  six  years.  There 
have  been  fourteen  cases  of  increase  in  salary,  twelve  cases 
of  no  change,  and  no  cases  of  decrease.  By  increasing  the 
salary  of  the  superintendent,  it  may  be  confidently  expected 
that  more  and  better  men  may  be  tempted  to  enter  the 
educational  profession.  Also  with  higher  salaries  generally, 
superintendents  will  not  be  so  inclined  to  leave  one  place 
to  go  to  another  because  of  salary. 

Finally,  this  tendency  is  seen  in  the  definition  of  the  larger 
functions  of  the  superintendent's  office  by  state  law  rather 
than  by  the  local  board  of  education.  As  we  have  seen,  in 
a  number  of  cities  the  state  law  or  the  city  charter  defines 
the  part  played  by  the  superintendent  in  the  appointment 
of  teachers. 

The  final  result  of  this  tendency  to  increase  the  impor- 
tance of  the  superintendent's  office  will  not  be  to  make  the 
superintendent  independent  of  the  board.  As  its  officer, 
the  superintendent  will  always  be  responsible  and  account- 
able to  the  board  of  education,  just  as  the  board  in  turn 
is  responsible  and  accountable  to  the  people.  The  results 
should  be  the  firmer  establishment  of  the  superintendent  of 
schools  on  a  higher  plane  of  usefulness,  adequate  provision 
for  the  possibility  of  judging  the  superintendent  by  his 
work,  and  further  provision  for  making  it  possible  for  the 
superintendent  to  devote  himself  exclusively  to  the  work  of 
his  office. 


178      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

The  Appointment  of  Teachers.     A  Constructive 

Plan 

Thus  far  in  this  chapter  I  have  characterized  the  present 
status  and  the  probable  future  development  of  the  board 
of  education  and  of  the  office  of  superintendent  of  schools. 
This  characterization  has  been  based  on  a  study  of  the 
present  status  of  the  board  and  of  the  superintendent  in 
seventy-three  representative  cities,  and  on  the  changes  in 
the  organization  of  the  board  and  of  the  office  of  superin- 
tendent in  twenty-eight  of  the  largest  cities  in  the  United 
States  during  the  past  twenty  years.  In  presenting  a  con- 
structive plan  for  the  appointment  of  teachers,  I  shall  as- 
sume such  a  board  of  education  and  such  a  superintendent 
of  schools  as  I  have  characterized  or  described. 

I  make  this  assumption  because  in  this  monograph  I  am 
not  concerned  chiefly  with  a  reorganization  of  the  board  or 
of  the  office  of  superintendent,  but  with  a  reconstruction 
of  the  methods  of  appointing  of  teachers.  Even  though 
the  appointment  of  teachers  is  one  of  the  most  important 
functions  for  which  the  board  and  the  superintendent  are 
responsible,  a  reorganization  of  either  appointive  agency 
cannot  be  properly  recommended  on  the  limited  basis  of 
this  study.  Such  a  reorganization  should  properly  come 
only  after  a  detailed  study  of  all  the  functions  which  each 
performs  or  should  perform.  Hence,  I  have  made  a  de- 
tailed study  of  the  board  and  of  the  superintendent  only  in 
order  to  be  able  to  characterize  each  properly.  The  only 
changes  which  I  recommend  in  the  board  or  the  superin- 
tendent relate  to  the  proper  functions  of  each  in  appointing 
teachers. 

In  view  of  the  previous  detailed  characterization  and 
summation  of  the  methods  of  appointing  teachers,1  the 
significance  of  those  methods,2  and  the  eligibility  qualifica- 

1  Chap.  ii.  2  Chap.  iii. 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  179 

tions  of  teachers,1  it  is  unnecessary  to  make  further  summary 
of  those  topics  here.  Instead,  I  shall  offer  a  constructive 
plan  based  on  the  facts  brought  out  and  the  conditions 
revealed  in  this  monograph.  This  plan  will  cover  not  only 
the  formal  procedure  of  making  the  appointments,  but 
also  the  other  administrative  functions  or  factors  necessarily 
associated  with  making  appointments,  namely,  eligibility 
requirements  of  candidates,  the  methods  of  determining 
their  qualifications,  the  board  of  examiners,  and  the  merit 
list  of  eligible  candidates. 

(i)   ELIGIBILITY  REQUIREMENTS  OF  CANDIDATES 

In  every  city  the  minimum  eligibility  requirements  for 
each  teaching  position  should  be  defined  in  a  direct,  com- 
prehensive statement,  covering  (a)  age,  (b)  academic  edu- 
cation, (c)  professional  training,  (d)  teaching  experience, 
and  (e)  other  credentials  required,  such  as  certificates  of 
birth,  health,  vaccination,  moral  character,  and  graduation. 
Whether  these  requirements  are  fixed  by  state  law  or  by 
the  local  authorities,  they  should  be  defined  and  stated  in  j 
the  published  documents  of  the  board  of  education,  so  that 
teachers  and  others  may  obtain  information  on  the  above 
topics.  Anyone  who  has  tried  to  make  a  comparative  study 
of  the  above  facts  for  a  group  of  cities  appreciates  how 
incomplete  such  information  is  even  in  those  school  docu- 
ments which  profess  to  give  it. 

(2)     METHODS  OF  DETERMINING  QUALIFICATIONS 

Should  all  candidates  be  required  to  take  examinations 
in  prescribed  subjects,  or  should  candidates  holding  certif- 
icates of  graduation  from  approved  institutions  be  granted 
certificates   of   qualification   without   such   examinations? 

1  Chap.  iv. 


180      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

This  question  is  answered  in  various  states  and  in  different 
cities  according  to  the  relative  value  placed  on  examinations 
and  on  records  of  work  in  school.  Under  present  condi- 
tions it  is  clearly  possible  to  require  either  an  examination 
or  a  prescribed  amount  of  schooling  of  an  approved  charac- 
ter. The  real  question  is,  Which  is  a  better  measure  of  the 
qualifications  of  a  candidate  for  a  teaching  position?  In 
Worcester  all  elementary  school  candidates  must  take  an 
examination  in  the  prescribed  academic  and  professional 
subjects,  regardless  of  their  school  record.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  St.  Louis  the  elementary  school  candidates  who 
are  graduates  of  approved  institutions  may  be  certified  and 
appointed  on  the  basis  of  their  school  work. 

Lack  of  agreement  as  to  what  subjects  should  form  the 
basis  of  the  examinations  is  strikingly  shown  by  the  systems 
of  examinations  in  the  five  cities  *  especially  studied.  There 
are  thirty-two  different  subjects  prescribed  by  name  for 
candidates  for  an  elementary  school  certificate.  Of  this 
extraordinary  number,  only  two  subjects,  English  grammar 
and  American  history,  are  uniformly  required  in  the  five 
cities!  The  variety  of  academic  subjects  allowed  and  the 
fact  that  only  a  small  number  of  subjects  are  prescribed 
seem  to  indicate  that  there  are  exceedingly  few,  if  any, 
subjects  which  are  considered  indispensable  in  testing  a 
candidate's  fitness  to  teach. 

On  the  other  hand,  all  candidates  for  teaching  positions 
in  our  cities  may  be  expected,  and  indeed  required,  to  have 
had  a  reasonable  amount  of  satisfactory  schooling  in  ap- 
proved institutions.  If  education  in  the  city  is  a  state  func- 
tion, why  should  the  city  expend  considerable  sums  of 
money  annually  for  the  examination  of  candidates  who  have 
been  graduated  from  state  normal  schools  or  state  univer- 
sities and  who  have  thereby  been  approved  by  the  state 

1  Boston,  St.  Louis,  Cincinnati,  Worcester,  and  Portland,  Me. 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  181 

as  qualified  to  teach?  In  this  respect  the  St.  Louis  system 
is  commendable.  The  superintendent  of  schools  is  given 
large  discretionary  power  to  grant  certificates  to  teach  to 
graduates  of  approved  institutions  without  examination. 
If  graduates  of  certain  schools  fail  frequently,  the  superin- 
tendent has  the  authority  to  refuse  to  grant  further  cer- 
tificates. If  graduates  from  certain  schools  usually  succeed, 
he  may  adopt  a  policy  of  drawing  largely  on  that  source  of 
supply. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing,  a  system  of  certification  of  can- 
didates should  be  based  on  the  following  general  plan. 

i.  There  should  be  an  arrangement  for  accepting  certif- 
icates of  graduation  from  reputable  and  approved  insti- 
tutions. The  approving  of  institutions  should  be  done  by 
the  proper  school  authorities  and  should  be  based  on  an 
examination  of  the  adequacy  of  the  institution  to  give  the 
amount  and  character  of  the  instruction  indicated  in  the 
eligibility  requirements  or  in  the  prescribed  examinations. 

2.  There  should  be  a  system  of  examinations  for  those 
who  cannot,  for  any  reason,  qualify  under  the  certificate 
system.  The  examination  should  test  the  fitness  of  the 
candidate  to  teach,  and  should  include  academic  and  pro- 
fessional subjects.  The  academic  examination  should  test 
the  candidate's  knowledge  of  the  subject  or  subjects  which 
he  or  she  wishes  to  teach,  and  such  other  allied  subjects 
as  may  be  considered  essential.  The  professional  examina- 
tion should  test  the  candidate's  ability  to  teach,  as  shown 
by  his  or  her  knowledge  of  principles  and  methods  of  teach- 
ing and  his  or  her  work  in  the  classroom. 

(3)     THE  BOARD   OF    EXAMINERS   TO   GRANT   CERTIFICATES 
OF   QUALIFICATION 

That  candidates  possess  the  necessary  qualifications  to 
teach  in  a  given  city  should  be  certified  to  by  a  board  of 


1 82     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

examiners  consisting  of  professional  men  and  women,  of 
whom  the  superintendent  should  be  the  chief.  This  board 
should  grant  certificates  to  properly  qualified  candidates 
for  such  positions  in  the  school  system,  whether  they 
qualify  by  certificate  of  graduation  from  an  approved  in- 
stitution or  by  passing  a  prescribed  examination.  The 
board  of  examiners  should  be  the  authority  to  approve  in- 
stitutions and  to  conduct  the  necessary  investigation  of 
institutions  for  that  purpose. 


(4)   THE  MERIT  LIST  OF  ELIGIBLE   CANDIDATES 

Whether  candidates  are  certified  on  the  basis  of  their 
school  records  or  as  the  result  of  a  prescribed  examination, 
there  will  still  be  differences  in  quality  among  them.  Even 
though  all  candidates  meet  the  fixed  minimum  require- 
ments, some  candidates  will  barely  meet  them,  while  others 
could  meet  a  much  higher  standard.  For  example,  the 
minimum  requirement  for  passing  the  examinations  may 
be  60  per  cent.  One  candidate  may  obtain  exactly  60  per 
cent,  and  another  may  obtain  90  per  cent.  If  the  examina- 
tion is  a  fair  means  of  testing  the  teaching  ability  of  candi- 
dates, then  we  must  assume  that  the  candidate  who  obtained 
90  per  cent  is  likely  to  be  a  better  teacher  than  the  one  who 
obtained  only  60  per  cent.  Inasmuch  as  a  city  has  a  right 
to  the  best  teachers  that  the  established  salaries  will  pro- 
vide, some  way  should  be  found  to  insure  the  appointment 
of  those  candidates  who  appear  to  be  best  qualified.  The 
best  method  yet  found  is  a  merit  list  of  eligible  candidates. 

On  the  basis  of  their  scholarship  records  in  school,  or  as 
the  result  of  a  prescribed  examination,  or  both,  together 
with  such  other  considerations  as  may  be  deemed  essential, 
qualified  candidates  for  the  various  positions  in  a  school 
system  should  be  listed  according  to  their  qualifications. 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  183 

There  should  be  as  many  lists  for  the  elementary  schools 
as  there  are  kinds  or  ranks  of  position.  In  the  case  of  the 
high  school  there  should  be  a  list  of  candidates  qualified  to 
teach  each  subject.  The  names  should  be  accompanied  by 
the  ratings  of  the  candidates. 

(5)    THE  PROCEDURE  IN  MAKING  APPOINTMENTS 

The  board  of  education  is  a  lay  body;  it  is  a  deliberative 
and  not  an  executive  body.  Its  function  is  to  consider  edu- 
cational policies  and  decide,  for  example,  what  kinds  of 
schools  the  public  needs  and  how  much  the  public  can 
afford  to  pay  for  them.  In  considering  these  matters  it 
should  obtain  the  advice  and  counsel  of  its  professional 
adviser,  the  city  superintendent  of  schools.  Because  the 
board  of  education  consists  of  laymen,  and  because  its 
functions  should  be  deliberative  and  not  executive,  the 
board  should  not  directly  discharge  the  important  tech- 
nical and  executive  function  of  appointing  teachers. 

The  city  superintendent  of  schools  is  the  board's  chief 
professional  executive.  It  is  his  chief  function  to  carry  into 
execution  the  policies  of  the  board  and  to  perform  the 
executive  functions  for  which  the  board  is  officially  re- 
sponsible. As  an  officer  of  the  board,  he  has  no  authority 
except  that  delegated  to  him  by  the  board  or  conferred  on 
him  by  law.  Inasmuch  as  the  appointment  of  teachers  is  a 
professional  and  executive  function,  it  should  be  performed 
by  the  superintendent  of  schools,  subject,  as  are  all  his 
acts,  to  the  board's  approval. 

The  following  recommendations  are  based  on  the  best 
practices  found  in  the  seventy-three  cities.  References  are 
given  in  footnotes  to  the  pages  in  the  preceding  monograph 
where  such  practices  are  described. 

1.  When  a  regular  teacher  is  to  be  appointed  to  fill  a 


1 84     THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

vacancy  in  the  teaching  force  or  to  occupy  a  new  position, 
such  teacher  should  be  appointed  by  the  city  superintendent 
of  schools,  subject  to  confirmation  or  rejection  by  the  board 
of  education.1 

2.  The  authority  of  the  superintendent  to  make  such 
appointments  should  be  defined  by  law,2  and  not  left  to  the 
discretion  of  the  board. 

3.  The  board  should  be  enjoined  by  law  from  participat- 
ing in  the  appointment  of  teachers  in  any  way  except  to 
confirm  or  reject  the  appointments  made  by  the  superin- 
tendent.3 The  board  should  have  the  unquestioned  right  to 
obtain  full  information  from  the  superintendent  concerning 
the  qualifications  of  those  whom  he  appoints. 

4.  An  appointment  made  by  the  superintendent  should 
go  directly  to  the  board  for  confirmation,  and  not  pass 
through  the  hands  of  a  standing  committee.4 

5.  The  board  should  state  in  its  rules  the  fact  that  it 
holds  the  superintendent  responsible  for  the  character  of 
the  appointments  which  he  makes.5 

6.  The  appointment  should  always  be  made  from  among 
the  first  three  names  on  the  appropriate  eligible  list.6 

7.  The  superintendent  should  be  required  by  the  rules 
of  the  board  to  consult  the  principal  of  the  school  before 
making  an  appointment,  or  the  director  of  a  special  de- 
partment when  the  teacher  is  to  give  instruction  in  a  special 
subject.7 

1  The  nine  cities  in  Class  A  illustrate  this  method  of  making  appointments. 
See  pp.  37-40. 

2  See,  for  example,  Rochester,  p.  25;  Washington,  pp.  27-28;  and  Cleveland, 
Columbus,  Dayton,  p.  39. 

3  See,  for  example,  Washington,  pp.  27-28;  Rochester,  p.  25.  Pittsburgh  and 
Kansas  City,  Kan.,  make  the  same  provision  in  their  rules. 

*  See,  for  example,  Boston,  Pittsburgh,  Baltimore,  New  Haven,  Albany, 
Rochester,  Nashville,  Indianapolis,  Seattle,  Portland,  San  Francisco,  Jackson- 
ville, Fla.,  Meridian,  Miss.,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,  Reno,  Nev.,  pp.  13-16. 

6  See,  for  example,  Kansas  City,  Kan.,  p.  31. 

6  See,  for  example,  Boston,  p.  68.  7  See,  for  example,  Boston,  p.  38. 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  185 

In  the  foregoing  study  I  have  maintained  that  the  teacher 
is  the  central  factor  in  the  problem  of  providing  education. 
The  supervisory  officers,  the  special  teachers,  the  educa- 
tional equipment,  and  all  other  educational  resources  are 
for  the  purpose  of  improving  the  instruction  which  it  is  the 
teacher's  duty  to  give.  I  have  shown  that  annually  6  per 
cent  of  the  total  population  in  the  United  States  is  directly 
affected  by  the  character  of  this  instruction.  I  have  shown 
that  over  72  per  cent  of  the  total  operating  expenses  of  our 
city  school  systems  is  for  the  salaries  of  teachers,  principals, 
and  supervisors. 

To  the  pupil,  the  teacher  is  the  school.  Hence,  in  a  city 
school  system  the  importance  of  the  teacher  cannot  be  over- 
estimated. The  most  important  single  asset  which  any 
school  system  can  possess  is  a  corps  of  efficient  teachers. 
The  difference  between  mediocre  teachers  and  efficient 
teachers  accounts  largely  for  the  difference  between  merely 
keeping  the  schools  running  and  keeping  them  running  at  a 
maximum  of  efficiency. 

In  securing  efficient  teachers,  the  method  of  making  ap- 
pointments becomes  of  supreme  importance.  If  from  year 
to  year  only  the  best  teachers  procurable  are  appointed, 
a  progressively  high  standard  of  teaching  efficiency  can  be 
developed  and  maintained.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  mediocre 
teachers  are  given  positions,  in  time  the  whole  school  sys- 
tem becomes  permeated  by  mediocrity.  Obviously  the  best 
method  of  securing  efficient  teachers  is  one  which  makes 
inevitable  the  appointment  of  those  who  are  best  qualified, 
and  which  prevents  the  appointment  of  those  who  are  not 
well  qualified. 

Almost  any  reasonable  method  of  appointing  teachers 
will  work  satisfactorily  when  conditions  are  favorable. 
However,  our  democratic  control  of  education  by  means  of 
a  lay  board  established  by  the  composite  will  of  the  com- 


186     TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

munity  is  continually  fraught  with  the  danger  that  an 
indifferent  or  misinformed  or  misguided  community  may 
allow  the  control  of  education  to  pass  temporarily  into  the 
hands  of  petty  politicians,  self-seekers,  or  others  whose 
chief  interest  is  not  the  proper  education  of  children. 
Self-seeking  politicians  have  ever  sought  to  secure  the  politi- 
cal patronage  which  the  school  system  might  provide.  The 
plan  of  appointing  teachers  should  be  one  which  will,  as 
far  as  possible,  minimize  such  dangers.  It  should  be  one 
which  is  most  likely  to  work  under  unfavorable  condi- 
tions, one  which  is  not  dependent  for  its  success  on  ideal 
conditions  which  are  seldom  found. 

To  work  reasonably  well  under  all  conditions,  the  plan 
for  the  appointment  of  teachers  must  recognize  the  proper 
functions  of  each  participating  agency.  The  functions  of 
each  participant  must  be  clearly  defined,  so  that  the  re- 
sponsibility of  each  is  fixed,  and  hence  accountability  can 
be  insisted  on.  There  should  be  no  opportunity  for  mis- 
understanding of  duty  or  for  evasion  of  responsibility  or 
accountability. 

In  this  chapter  I  have  attempted  to  formulate  such  a 
plan  for  the  appointment  of  teachers.  The  plan  is  a  com- 
posite of  the  best  features  of  the  methods  of  appointing 
teachers  in  seventy-three  representative  cities  in  the  United 
States.  While  every  feature  of  this  plan  is  in  actual  prac- 
tice to-day,  the  combination  of  these  features  is  not  found 
in  any  city.  Several  cities,  however,  now  approximate  to 
the  plan. 

In  view  of  the  great  variety  of  methods  of  appointing 
teachers  in  the  cities  studied,  it  is  clear  that  the  adoption 
of  the  proposed  plan  will  necessitate  some  reorganization 
in  many  city  school  systems.  In  some  cases  new  state  laws 
must  be  made  or  old  ones  modified;  in  others  only  local 
rules  and  regulations  need  be  changed. 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  187 

Inasmuch  as  state  legislatures  are  charged  by  their  re- 
spective state  constitutions  with  the  responsibility  for 
passing  the  laws  necessary  to  promote  public  education, 
they  are  usually  willing  to  make  those  educational  laws 
which  cities  ask  them  to  make.  To  secure  the  needed  legis- 
lation for  a  city,  therefore,  becomes  largely  a  local  matter. 
It  is  necessary  for  the  people  of  a  city  to  evince  sufficient 
interest  to  seek  the  required  legislation.  Obviously,  to 
secure  changes  in  the  local  rules,  it  is  likewise  necessary  to 
convince  the  people  and  the  board  of  education  of  the  need 
of  the  adoption  of  such  a  plan  for  the  appointment  of  teach- 
ers as  is  here  proposed.  This  can  be  done  only  by  the  con- 
tinual and  persistent  efforts  of  those  who  believe  that  the 
teachers  are  the  most  important  single  factor  in  the  schools, 
that  the  schools  are  for  the  children,  and  that  the  children 
are  entitled  to  the  best  teachers  that  the  community  can 
provide. 


APPENDICES 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The  literature  on  most  phases  of  educational  administration  has  in- 
creased marvelously  during  the  past  decade  and  is  now  rather  exten- 
sive. Several  of  the  books  on  school  administration  contain  fairly 
large  lists  of  references.  Much  of  this  educational  literature  is  to  be 
found  in  such  periodicals  as  the  Educational  Review,  Education, 
American  Education,  and  the  American  School  Board  Journal.  The 
School  Review  and  the  Pedagogical  Seminary  sometimes  contain 
articles  on  school  administration.  Undoubtedly  the  two  largest 
sources  of  general  information  on  educational  administration  are  the 
Reports  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education  and  the 
Proceedings  of  the  National  Education  Association  (Department  of 
Superintendence).  Because  of  the  prominence  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion and  of  the  superintendent  of  schools  in  the  administration  of  city 
school  systems,  the  references  and  articles  on  these  two  subjects  in 
these  sources  are  especially  numerous. 

During  my  study  of  the  problems  of  educational  administration  I 
have  prepared,  from  time  to  time,  lists  of  references  on  various  topics. 
I  have  prepared  a  bibliography  of  sixty-five  titles  covering  city  school 
organization,  administration,  and  supervision;  one  of  nearly  a  hun- 
dred titles,  mostly  references  to  periodical  literature,  covering  the 
city  board  of  education;  and  one  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-five 
titles  on  the  city  superintendent  of  schools.  As  I  read  these  articles 
I  annotated  each  reference,  indicating  its  value  to  me  in  my  study  of 
the  problem  of  appointing  teachers.  However,  it  does  not  seem  to  me 
desirable  that  I  should  submit  this  annotated  bibliography  as  a  part 
of  this  monograph. 

In  the  first  place,  little  or  no  direct  use  is  made  of  these  secondary 
sources  in  the  preparation  of  this  thesis.  The  nature  and  purpose  of 
my  study  precluded  any  extensive  theoretical  discussion  in  which  I 
might  have  made  use  of  some  of  these  sources. 

In  the  second  place,  many  really  important  articles  are  annotated 
to  show  only  their  value  to  one  particularly  interested  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  teachers.   The  annotation  does  not  show  what  other  topics  are 

191 


192      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

discussed  in  them.  To  print  such  annotations  is  unfair  both  to  the 
author  of  the  article  and  to  the  user  of  the  bibliography.  To  the 
former  it  does  not  give  the  credit  due  the  article,  and  to  the  latter  it 
does  not  give  complete  information. 

The  bibliography  accompanying  this  monograph  gives  only  a  list 
of  the  references  quoted  and  a  few  references  to  the  more  important 
articles  on  which  discussions  are  based.  It  is  my  intention  at  an  early 
date  to  publish  in  some  convenient  form  an  annotated  bibliography 
on  city  educational  administration  in  general  and  on  the  city  board 
of  education  and  the  city  superintendent  of  schools  in  particular. 

Such  a  study  as  I  have  made  in  this  monograph  is  naturally  based 
on  primary  and  not  secondary  sources  of  information.  The  main 
sources  of  the  facts  have  been  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  boards 
of  education.  From  them  chiefly  I  have  obtained  information  con- 
cerning the  methods  of  appointing  teachers  in  the  various  cities.  In 
many  cases,  likewise,  I  have  obtained  information  concerning  the 
board  of  education  and  its  committee  organization.  Inasmuch  as  I 
have  referred  specifically  to  a  school  document  wherever  a  quotation 
has  been  made  or  a  fact  asserted  about  a  city,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
repeat  here  a  list  of  the  rules  consulted. 

Following  is  a  list  of  the  articles  quoted  in  this  monograph  and  a 
few  of  the  more  important  articles  which  form  the  basis  of  this  study. 

Bard.  The  City  School  District.  A  Study  of  the  "Statutory  Provisions 
for  Organization  and  Fiscal  Affairs  in  Cities."  Columbia  University 
Contributions  to  Education,  No.  28,  pp.  118.     1909. 

The  author  describes  the  purpose  of  the  monograph  as  follows: 
"(1)  to  point  out  the  relation  of  the  city  school  district  to  the  city, 
(2)  to  determine  its  relation  to  the  state,  (3)  to  show  the  nature  of  the 
control  the  state  exercises  over  it,  (4)  to  show  the  provisions  the  state 
has  made  for  the  city  school  district  with  reference  to  its  organization 
and  fiscal  affairs"  (p.  7).  One  of  the  best  sources  of  information. 
There  is  a  bibliography  of  sixty-one  titles. 

Burnham.  Principles  of  Municipal  School  Administration.  Atlantic 
Monthly,  vol.  xcii,  pp.  105-112.     1903. 

Discusses  the  following  ten  principles  of  city  school  administration: 
"Any  system  of  school  administration  should  be  (1)  Economical; 
(2)  free  from  politics;  (3)  of  such  a  character  as  to  stimulate  and  not 
check  the  local  feeling  of  interest  and  responsibility  for  education; 
(4)  free  from  artificial  limitations,  —  limitations  as  regards  sex,  race, 
religion,  or  election  of  officers;  (5)  adapted  to  the  community  where  it 
exists;  (6)  independent  of  the  municipal  government;  (7)  the  School 
Board  should  be  small;  (8)  the  executive  officers  should  be  experts; 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  193 

(9)  civil  service  principles  should  prevail;  (10)  there  should  be  concen- 
tration of  power  and  responsibility"  (pp.  108-109). 

Chamberlain.  The  Growth  of  Responsibility  and  Enlargement  of  Power 
of  the  City  School  Superintendent.  University  of  California  Press. 
1913- 

The  best  article  on  this  subject.  Traces  the  tendencies  which  have 
brought  about  the  increased  power  and  responsibility  of  the  superin- 
tendent.   There  is  a  long  bibliography,  pp.  426-441. 

Draper.  Functions  of  the  State  Touching  Education.  Ed.  Rev.,  vol.  xv, 
pp.  105-120.     1898. 

Maintains  that  education  is  a  state  function,  as  shown  by  the  state 
constitutions  and  court  decisions;  that  the  state  must  not  only  organize 
and  maintain  public  schools,  but  also  must  prevent  educational  quack- 
ery.   A  vigorous  article. 

Draper.  Plans  of  Organization  for  School  Purposes  in  Large  Cities.  Ed. 
Rev.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  1-16.     1893. 

An  excellent  resume  of  current  practices  in  the  organization  of  city 
school  systems.  Contains  a  table  showing  several  facts  pertaining  to 
the  board  and  the  superintendent  in  all  cities  of  over  100,000. 

Fairlie.  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  New  York  State.  Colum- 
bia University  Studies  in  History,  Economics,  and  Public  Law,  vol.  ix, 
No.  3.     1903.     Chap,  ii,  Public  Education,  pp.  22-77. 

Gives  an  account  of  the  development  of  state  aid  and  state  control. 
Discusses  local  school  authorities,  including  city  boards  of  education. 

Goodnow.  Municipal  Problems.  The  Macmillan  Co.  1904.  Chap,  iv, 
The  Relation  of  the  City  to  the  State,  pp.  62-89. 

Does  not  deal  specifically  with  educational  administration,  but  does 
discuss  the  city  as  an  agent  of  the  state. 

Hinsdale.  Provisions  Concerning  Education  in  the  State  Constitutions. 
Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  vol.  ii,  pp. 
1312-1414.     1892-3. 

The  article  is  historical;  it  quotes  the  sections  of  all  state  constitu- 
tions relating  to  education.  A  valuable  source  of  information  covering 
the  period  from  1776  to  1865. 

Moore.    How  New  York  Administers  its  Schools.    World  Book  Co.    1913. 

An  illuminating  discussion  of  the  methods  of  work  of  the  large  board 

of  education  of  forty-six  members  in  New  York  City.    A  fine  analysis 

of  the  legal  relation  of  the  department  of  education  to  the  municipal 

government  and  to  the  state. 

Rollins.     School  Administration  in  Municipal   Government.     Columbia 
University  Contributions  to  Philosophy,  Psychology,  and  Education, 
vol.  xi,  No.  1,  pp.  106.     1902. 
"The  method  of  this  study  has  been  to  obtain  and  record  a  body  of 


194     TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

facts;  to  collect  and  compare  expert  opinions  relating  to  the  facts  and 
their  results,  and  to  draw  such  general  conclusions  as  seemed  warranted." 
—  Preface. 

Discusses  the  relation  of  the  city  to  the  state;  presents  a  table  show- 
ing size,  method  of  selection,  term,  and  other  facts  concerning  the 
board;  also  discusses  the  functions  of  business  manager,  superintendent 
of  schools,  principals  and  teachers  as  administrative  agencies.  Also  the 
school  and  the  community.  Contains  a  bibliography  of  sixty-three 
titles. 

Suzzallo.  The  Rise  of  Local  School  Supervision  in  Massachusetts.  Colum- 
bia University  Contributions  to  Education,  vol.  i,  No.  3,  pp.  154.  1906. 
Deals  historically  with  the  evolution  of  the  school  committee  in 
Massachusetts  from  1635  to  1827.  Traces  the  evolution  from  the  town 
meeting,  through  the  selectmen,  special  committees,  to  the  organization 
of  a  permanent  school  committee  in  Boston  in  1827.  Discusses  the 
functions  of  the  school  committee  in  1827.  The  best  article  dealing 
with  this  subject. 

Webster.  Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  State  Educational  Adminis- 
tration. Columbia  University,  Studies  in  History,  Economics,  and 
Public  Law,  vol.  viii,  No.  2. 

Shows  by  what  methods  the  state  discharges  its  responsibility  for  the 
education  of  the  children  of  the  state.  The  best  treatment  of  this 
subject. 

Whitten.  Public  Administration  in  Massachusetts.  The  Relation  of  Cen- 
tral to  Local  Activity.  Columbia  University,  Studies  in  History, 
Economics,  and  Public  Law,  vol.  viii,  No.  4.  Chap,  ii,  Public  Schools, 
pp.  19-39. 

Gives  an  account  of  the  evolution  of  public  school  administration, 
showing  the  extent  to  which  the  state  exercises  control  over  localities. 

Educational  Organization  and  Progress  in  American  Cities.  A 
Symposium  on  Present  Educational  Conditions  and  Needs.  Ann.  Am. 
Acad.,  vol.  xxv,  pp.  157-188.     1905. 

The  introduction  gives  a  digest  of  school  laws,  covering  executive 
organization,  executive  duties,  and  finance.  Then  follows  an  account 
of  the  powers  of  the  board  over  the  matters  suggested.  The  article 
covers  the  following  cities:  New  York,  Chicago,  Philadelphia,  Boston, 
Baltimore,  Cleveland,  Buffalo,  Cinncinati,  Pittsburgh,  New  Orleans, 
Milwaukee,  Washington,  D.  C,  Providence,  Kansas  City,  Grand  Rapids, 
Seattle,  and  Duluth;  each  city  is  discussed  by  a  local  man. 


APPENDIX  A 

Tables  showing,  by  divisions  of  the  country  and  by  states,  the  cities 
studied,  classified  as  first  class,  second  class,  or  third  class  cities,  and 
the  population  of  each  in  iqio  (given  only  in  thousands). 


South  Central  Division 


Cities 

First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Kentucky 

Louisville       223 

Tennessee 

Memphis        131 
Nashville        no 

Alabama 

»  .  . . 

Birmingham  132 

Mississippi 

.... 

Meridian        23 

Louisiana 

New  Orleans  339 

Texas 

San  Antonio  96 

Arkansas 

Little  Rock    45 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma      64 

North  Central  Division 


States 

Cities 

First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Ohio 

Cleveland 

560 

Columbus 

181 

Cincinnati 

363 

Dayton 
Toledo 

116 
168 

Indiana 

Indianapolis 

233 

Illinois 

Chicago 

2,185 

Michigan 

Detroit 

465 

Grand  Rapids 

112 

Wisconsin 

Milwaukee 

373 

Minnesota 

Minneapolis 

301 

St.  Paul 

214 

Iowa 

Des  Moines    86 

Missouri 

St.  Louis 

687 

Kansas  City 

248 

N.  Dakota 

Fargo             14 

S.  Dakota 

Sioux  Falls     14 

Nebraska 

Omaha 

124 

Kansas 

Kansas  City  82 

19s 


196      TEE  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 


North  Atlantic  Division 


Cities 

States 

First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Maine 

Portland       58 

New  Hampshire 

Manchester  70 

Vermont 

Burlington    20 

Massachusetts 

Boston 

670 

Cambridge   104 
Fall  River    119 
Lowell          106 
Worcester     145 

Rhode  Island 

.... 

Providence  224 

Connecticut 



Bridgeport    102 
New  Haven  133 

New  York 

New  York 

4,766 

Albany         100 

Buffalo 

423 

Rochester     218 
Syracuse       137 

New  Jersey 

Newark 

347 

Jersey  City  267 
Paterson       125 

Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia 

i,S49 

Scranton       129 

Pittsburgh 

533 

South  Atlantic  Division 


Cities 

First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Delaware 

Wilmington  87 

Maryland 

Baltimore       558 

Dist.  of  Col. 

Washington    331 

Virginia 

Richmond 

127 

W.  Virginia 

Wheeling       41 

N.  Carolina 

Charlotte       34 

S.  Carolina 

Charleston     58 

Georgia 

Atlanta 

154 

Florida 

.... 

Jacksonville   57 

APPENDIX  A 


197 


Western  Division 


Cities 

States 

First  Class 

Second  Class 

Third  Class 

Montana 

Butte              39 

Wyoming 

Cheyenne       11 

Colorado 

Denver 

213 

New  Mexico 

Albuquerque  n 

Arizona 

Tucson           13 

Utah 

Salt  Lake       92 

Nevada 

Reno              10 

Idaho 

Boise              17 

Washington 

Seattle 

237 

Spokane 

104 

Oregon 

Portland 

207 

California 

San  Francisco  416 

Los  Angeles     319 

Oakland 

150 

Summary 


Divisions 

No.  of  First 
Class  Cities 

No.  of  Second 
Class  Cities 

No.  of  Third 
Class  Cities 

Summary 

North  Atlantic 
South  Atlantic 
South  Central 
North  Central 
Western 

6 
2 

I 

7 
2 

13 

2 

4 
8 

5 

3 
5 

4 
4 
7 

22 

9 

9 

19 

14 

Totals 

18 

32 

23 

73 

APPENDIX  B 

Tables  showing  the  population  (Federal  Census  1910),  the  number 
of  teachers,  the  enrolment,  and  the  salaries  paid  in  the  public  day 
schools;  the  total  operating  expenses,  exclusive  of  sites,  equipment, 
indebtedness,  and  interest  on  the  same,  in  1911-12,  in  the  cities  cov- 
ered by  this  study.  Compiled  from  data  in  the  Report  of  the  United 
States  Commissioner  of  Education,  191 2,  vol.  ii,  pp.  31,  69,  106. 


First  Class  Cities 


Teachers  in 

Enrolment  in 

Salaries  in 

Total 

Expenses  l 

iQii-12 

Cities 

Population 

IQIO 

Public  Day 
Schools 
1011-12 

Public  Day 
Schools 
iQii-12 

Public  Day 
Schools 
1911-12 

Boston 

670,585 

2,699 

114,165 

$2,945,572 

$4,621,245 

New  York 

4,766,883 

17,854 

783,245 

20,566,996 

30,203,613 

Buffalo 

423,715 

1,649 

57,827 

No  data 

No  data 

Newark 

347,467 

i,473 

63,024 

1,565,252 

2,43i,73i 

Philadelphia 

1,549,008 

4,517 

220,584 

3,878,011 

6,134,966 

Pittsburgh 

533,005 

1,903 

75,888 

1,337,202 

2,072,1752 

Baltimore 

558,485 

i,793 

72,105 

1,268,016 

1,916,807 

Washington 

331,069 

1,694 

56,784 

No  data 

No  data 

New  Orleans 

339,075 

i,i33 

42,110 

774,180 

1,112,167 

Cleveland 

560,663 

2,319 

76,610 

2,165,471 

2,982,283 

Cincinnati 

363,591 

1,043 

56,082 

1,219,566 

1,729,311 

Chicago 

2,185,283 

6,615 

307,281 

No  data 

No  data 

Detroit 

465,766 

1,561 

63,758 

1,432,553 

2,081,123 

Milwaukee 

373,857 

1,277 

5i,75o 

1,100,851 

1,798,978 

Minneapolis 

301,408 

1,224 

46,779 

1,237,187 

1,834,585 

St.  Louis 

687,029 

2,097 

94,925 

2,108,894 

3,425,523 

San  Francisco 

416,912 

1,088 

45,497 

1,312,177 

1,865,634 

Los  Angeles 

319,198 

1,718 

62,647 

1,943,922 

2,627,488 

Totals 

15,193,899 

53,657 

2,291,061 

$44,945,850 

$66,837,629 

1  Exclusive  of  sites,  equipment,  indebtedness,  and  interest  on  same. 

2  For  1910-11. 

198 


APPENDIX  B 


199 


Second  Class  Cities 


Teachers  in 

Enrolment  in 

Salaries  in 

Cities 

Population 

IOIO 

Public  Day 
Schools 

Public  Day 
Schools 

Public  Day 
Schools 

Total 
Expenses l 

1911-12 

iQii-12 

1911-12 

1911-13 

Cambridge 

104,839 

433 

16,833 

$356,426 

$542,126 

Fall  River 

II9.29S 

519 

16,913 

304,695 

5",3I7 

Lowell 

106,294 

327 

13,049 

248,710 

432,947 

Worcester 

145,986 

694 

23,539 

541,788 

828,456 

Providence 

224,326 

839 

35,398 

653,271 

1,094,135 

Bridgeport 

102,054 

327 

15,019 

198,005 

316,663 

New  Haven 

I33i605 

624 

25,590 

465,488 

664,676 

Albany- 

100,253 

324 

12,384 

253,324 

411,604 

Rochester 

218,149 

707 

27,648 

701,256 

998,571 

Syracuse 

137,249 

568 

21,201 

381,056 

659,000 

Jersey  City 

267,779 

826 

38,016 

777,201 

1,221,312 

Paterson 

125,600 

500 

2I,2o6 

375,645 

546,552 

Scranton 

129,867 

569 

23,070 

No  data 

No  data 

Richmond 

127,628 

45i 

17,488 

253,922 

377,623 

Atlanta 

154,839 

45o 

22,147 

350,150 

422,316 

Louisville 

223,928 

690 

29,601 

484,874 

772,941 

Memphis 

i3I»IoS 

422 

17,584 

301,649 

479,728 

Nashville 

110,364 

346 

17,079 

256,708 

380,845 

Birmingham 

132,685 

537 

23,474 

279,774 

449,707 

Columbus 

181,511 

683 

25,648 

596,050 

962,527 

Dayton 

"6,577 

418 

15,931 

342,141 

5",594 

Toledo 

168,497 

670 

25,131 

519,447 

818,814 

Indianapolis 

233,650 

924 

34,204 

No  data 

No  data 

Grand  Rapids 

112,571 

495 

16,584 

397,110 

637,210 

St.  Paul 

214,744 

727 

28,708 

519,762 

775,661 

Omaha 

124,096 

507 

19,553 

382,953 

693,282 

Kansas  City 

248,381 

962 

37,937 

771,473 

i,3i7,590 

Denver 

213,381 

930 

38,312 

920,095 

1,328,679 

Seattle 

237,194 

922 

32,592 

1,111,330 

1,562,903 

Spokane 

104,402 

457 

17,433 

461,762 

728,885 

Portland 

207,214 

761 

30,102 

779,919 

1,165,852 

Oakland 

i5o,i74 

517 

21,722 

625,211 

895,483 

Totals 

5,108,237 

19,126 

761,096 

$14,611,195 

$22,508,999 

1  Exclusive  of  sites,  equipment,  indebtedness,  and  interest  on  same. 


200      THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   TEACHERS  IN  CITIES 

Third  Class  Cities 


Teachers  in 

Enrolment  in 

Salaries  in 

Total 
Expenses  * 

Cities 

Population 
1910 

Public  Day 
Schools 

Public  Day 
Schools 

Public  Day 
Schools 

1911-12 

1911-12 

igii-12 

Portland,  Me. 

58,571 

295 

10,077 

No  data 

No  data 

Manchester,  N.  H. 

70,063 

184 

8,006 

$85,048 

$186,953 

Burlington,  Vt. 

20,468 

IOO 

3,000 

No  data 

No  data 

Wilmington,  Del. 

87,411 

No  data 

No  data 

<( 

«« 

Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

41,641 

154 

5,613 

«« 

«< 

Charlotte,  N.  C. 

34,Oi4 

108 

5,595 

«« 

a 

Charleston,  S.  C. 

58,833 

131 

5,784 

62,498 

105,190 

Jacksonville,  Fla. 

57,699 

160 

8,207 

No  data 

No  data 

Meridian,  Miss. 

23,285 

9i 

4,035 

u 

(i 

San  Antonio,  Tex. 

96,614 

323 

14,434 

<< 

<< 

Little  Rock.  Ark. 

45,941 

171 

7,487 

100,113 

168,519 

Oklahoma.  Okla. 

64,205 

385 

13,683 

No  data 

No  data 

Des  Moines,  la. 

86,368 

495 

17,659 

380,233 

647,670 

Fargo,  N.  D. 

I4,33i 

70 

2,436 

No  data 

No  data 

Sioux  Falls,  S.  D. 

14,094 

83 

2,833 

61,032 

122,866 

Kansas  City,  Kan. 

82,331 

349 

14,593 

272,6582 

384,059 

Butte,  Mont. 

39,i65 

235 

7,o74 

212,617 

354,527 

Cheyenne,  Wy. 

11,320 

49 

1,844 

33,027 

60,292 

Albuquerque,  N.  M. 

11,020 

5o 

1,998 

31,098 

56,283 

Tucson,  Ariz. 

13,193 

No  data 

No  data 

No  data 

No  data 

Salt  Lake,  Utah 

92,777 

562 

19,561 

461,825 

7i5,7o8 

Reno,  Nev. 

10,867 

5i 

1,856 

48,440 

64,372 

Boise,  Idaho 

17,358 

126 

4,219 

106,137 

163,758 

Totals 

1,051,569 

4,172 

159,994 

$1,854,726 

$3,030,197 

Totals  for  all  Cities  Studied 


Cities 


First  class 
Second  class 
Third  class 


Population 
1910 


15,193,899 
5,108,237 

1,051,569 


Teachers  in 

Public  Day 

Schools^ 

1911-12 


53,657 

19,126 

4,172 


Enrolment  in 

Public  Day 

Schools 

1911-12 


2,291,061 
761,096 
159,994 


Salaries  in 

Public  Day 

Schools 

1911-12 


$44,945,850 

14,611,195 

1,854,726 


Total 

Expenses ' 

1911-12 


$66,837,629 

22,508,999 

3,030,197 


Totals 


21,353,705 


76,955 


3,212,151 


$61,411,771 


$92,376,825 


1  Exclusive  of  sites,  equipment,  indebtedness,  and  interest  on  same. 

2  For  1910-11. 


APPENDIX  B  20I 

COMPARISONS 

The  following  comparisons  show  the  relation  of  the  cities  covered  in 
this  study  to  the  cities  of  the  country  in  respect  to  the  items  in  the 
table  above.  Data  taken  from  the  Report  of  the  United  States  Com- 
missioner of  Education,  191 2,  vol.  ii. 

1.  Population 

Actual  Population  and  Distribution  in  1910 

Total  population 91,972,266 

Urban  population 42,623,383,  or  46.3  per  cent 

Rural  population 49,348,883,  or  53.7  per  cent 

(a)  Total  urban  population,  1910 42,623,383 

(6)  Total  for  cities  studied,  1910 21,353,705 

(c)  Per  cent  latter  is  of  former 5°-9 

2.  Teachers 

(a)  Total  for  cities  of  country,  191 1 154,815 

(b)  Total  for  cities  studied,  191 1      76,955 

(c)  Per  cent  latter  is  of  former 49*7 

3.  Enrolment 

Total  for  cities  of  country,  191 1 6,141,866 

Total  for  cities  studied,  1911 3,212,151 

Per  cent  latter  is  of  former 52«a 

4.  Salaries 

(a)  Total  for  cities  of  country,  19 1 1 $128,433,819 

(b)  Total  for  cities  studied,  191 1      .......        66,411,771 

(c)  Per  cent  latter  is  of  former 5X«7 

5.  Operating  Expenses 

(a)  Total  for  cities  of  country,  191 1 $177,393,567 

(6)  Total  for  cities  studied,  1911     92,476,845 

(c)  Per  cent  latter  is  of  former S3-1 


APPENDIX  C 


Memorandum  Concerning  the  City  of. 


I.  On  the  appointment  of  teachers. 

Who  nominates  or  recommends  candidates? 

Who  appoints? 

Who  approves  the  appointments? 

Is  there  a  merit  list  of  candidates? 

II.  On  the  board  of  education. 

Number  of  members  Term  of  office  in  years 

Compensation  How  members  are  chosen 

By  whom  At  large  or  by  wards 

Number  of  standing  committees 
Average  number  of  members  on  standing  committees 
Number  of  members  on  the  committee  on  teachers 
Qualifications  of  board  members 

III.  On  the  superintendent  of  schools. 
How  chosen? 

Tenure  of  office,  First  appointment 
Second  appointment 
No  difference  made 
How  tenure  is  fixed,  By  law 

By  rules  of  the  board 
Left  to  discretion  of  board 
Amount  of  salary 
How  salary  is  fixed,  By  law 

By  rules  of  the  board 
Left  to  discretion  of  board 
Qualifications  required 
Conditions  of  removal  of  superintendent  during  term 

Signed 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THP  T  a.. 


10V     4   1933 


-ggths?us3s_ 


*°^^ 


L*>  21-ioom-7,'33 


YC  57548 


( 


